Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

North Wales Hospital

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any further proposals to replace jobs lost on the closure of the North Wales hospital, Denbigh.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): No final decision has been made about the closure of the North Wales hospital at Denbigh.

Mr. Jones: I was given to understand that the time scale had shortened dramatically for the closure of the hospital. In the light of that, and in the light of the overall recession and a recent statement by the chairman of the Wales tourist board that 95,000 jobs are likely to go in the tourist industry, which is a majority alternative source of employment for those who will lose their jobs at the North Wales hospital, what does the Secretary of State plan to do to replace the jobs that will be lost in a shortened time scale?

Mr. Hunt: There were two aspects to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. First, I am glad that I have been able to reassure the hon. Gentleman about the present position regarding the North Wales hospital. Secondly, Denbigh is a designated action area under the Welsh Development Agency's rural prosperity programme and I have announced extra funds for the rural initiative. I hope that we shall see increasing job opportunities in and around the Denbigh area.

Right to Buy

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the Government's right-to-buy housing policy in Wales.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): Our right-to-buy policy has been extremely successful in Wales. During the past 10 years almost 88,000 new town and local authority dwellings have been sold. The percentage of owner-occupation in Wales has risen during that time from 62 to 71 per cent., which is the highest in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Mitchell: Given the truly excellent figures that have been provided by my hon. Friend, does he have any other plans to enhance choice and opportunity in the Welsh housing market—for example, by introducing concepts

such as flexi-ownership and rents into mortgages? If he has, does he think that the Labour party will oppose those policies and finally reluctantly accept them, just as it did with the right to buy?

Mr. Bennett: As my hon. Friend may be aware, the Development Board for Rural Wales has introduced a flexi-ownership scheme that is centred at Newtown. Already about 3 per cent. of applicants have bought their homes under the new scheme. I believe that it is a worth while development of the right-to-buy scheme for those who do not have the income to be able to buy their houses outright. I only wish that I could share my hon. Friend's confidence that the Opposition believe in the right-to-buy policy. The record of Labour authorities throughout the country does not give one much hope for believing that if there were a Labour Government they would continue the policy.

Mr. Wigley: May I press the Minister on the provisions of the Housing Act 1988, which allow the tenants of council houses to be paid grants under the scheme administered by the Welsh Office to enable them to buy houses in the private sector, thereby allowing council houses to be let to those on the waiting list? As only one such scheme has worked in Wales so far, to the best of my knowledge, will the hon. Gentleman say whether the Welsh Office supports the scheme? Is he optimistic that more authorities will take advantage of it?

Mr. Bennett: We certainly support the scheme and the one to which the hon. Gentleman referred is being evaluated. I hope that as a result of the evaluation we can amend the scheme, if necessary, to ensure that all local authorities in Wales may take part in it.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: According to a parliamentary answer that my hon. Friend gave on Friday, the council with the worst record for processing right-to-buy applications is, I am sorry to say, Cardiff city council, which has control in my constituency. On 31 March, 2,263 applications were outstanding, which was almost 30 per cent. of the all-Wales total. May I encourage my hon. Friend to take any action that will enable me to reassure my constituents that the delay is not the deliberate action of the city council and that it is providing sufficient resources to enable right-to-buy applications to be processed in decent time?

Mr. Bennett: I am concerned that some councils throughout Wales have a large backlog of properties waiting to be processed for sale. If my hon. Friend or any member of the public can refer to an applicant who has waited for an excessively long period to be told that he can purchase his property, I shall be happy to take up the case with the relevant local authority.

Mr. Murphy: As many thousands of families in Wales cannot afford mortgages for private houses, as the Government have almost stopped Welsh councils building new houses and as housing associations cannot cope with the level of demand, is the only advice that the Minister has for a young Welsh couple seeking a home to suggest that they go for flexi-ownership, or whatever he calls it?

Mr. Bennett: No, it is not. In addition to the generous support that we are giving to Tai Cymru in the coming year—I am looking forward to 3,300 properties being, built during the year—we have, in the past few days, given


nearly £1 million towards helping authorities bring back into use, for instance, flats above shops and offices. The Welsh Office is promoting a wide range of policies which will be put together in "Housing: Agenda for Action" which I am producing as a personal initiative next month.

NHS Trusts

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress of applications from those hospitals in Wales which have made approaches to the Welsh Office demonstrating their interest in acquiring trust status.

Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications and expressions of interest in national health service trust status he has received; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Grist: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had for hospitals in Wales to apply for trust status.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To date, only Pembrokeshire district health authority has submitted an expression of interest and made clear its intention to apply to become a trust on 1 April 1992.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Has the Minister—evidently he has not—learnt the lessons of the Monmouth by-election which are that the people of Wales do not want hospitals to opt out and that they do not want market forces introduced into and the creeping privatisation of the health service? Has the Minister thought about those issues? If so, will he put a halt to his programme of hospitals opting out?

Mr. Bennett: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has not learnt the lesson of the Monmouth by-election—that one cannot continue to retell untrue stories to the people of Wales. No hospital in Wales may opt out of the national health service. They all remain national health service hospitals, free at the point of delivery and generally paid for out of taxation.

Mr. Rowlands: Generally?

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman says "generally", but, of course, NHS hospitals already charge for some services, for example, prescriptions. That has always been the case. The new scheme of national health service trust hospitals will provide greater independence and flexibility for hospitals in Wales and it should be welcomed. I shall welcome any applications for trust status that may be made.

Mr. Hind: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Welsh people should not be frightened by the untruths and lies about national health service trusts which were pumped out during the Monmouth by-election? Does he agree that much of the Opposition's criticism about the trusts has related to the centre of London, which as we all know, is over-provided with hospital facilities and cannot be regarded as a measure for the rest of the country? Inevitably, when the internal market was applied, district health managers realised that they could provide the same services in the local district general hospital without sending their patients to London and they realised that the

service could be provided more cheaply, more efficiently and free at the point of delivery in a hospital run by their own staff.

Mr. Bennett: As usual, my hon. Friend puts his finger right on the central point of the argument. It is true that London has special problems as a result of the over-provision of teaching hospitals. I recall that in 1977 the Labour party introduced a reallocation of resources working party to move resources from London to the regions and to hospitals such as those in Wales. I congratulate my hon. Friend on recognising that important point.

Mr. Grist: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) is reported as going round Wales trying to scare electors into misunderstanding the nature of hospital trusts? Does my hon. Friend think either that the hon. Gentleman is plain ignorant of what the trusts involve or that he is grubbing round for the most disreputable sort of electoral support?

Mr. Bennett: I hope that it is the former, but I have my suspicions. The Labour party's attitude is also based on trying to scare people into believing that national health service hospitals will be privatised. It is clear that that is not true. All the hospitals in England that have become NHS trusts are national health service hospitals, free to the patient and paid for out of the generality of taxation.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: In a vast geographical area such as north Wales where there are only three district general hospitals, is not the concept of choice of hospital almost meaningless? As the Government's plans for trusts are based on the claim that they provide a choice for the patient, is not that another example of the Government's flight from reality in Wales? The plans should be abandonded. They are a waste of everybody's time and money.

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Patients in north Wales choose between the different hospitals already available—I hope to see an increase in patient movements between different hospitals. They also use hospitals in Cardiff and different regional treatment centres. Patients already go further afield if they want specialist treatment. I want the internal market in the health service to operate as quickly and effectively as possible. If one has such a market, competition, choice and a better quality of service result. That is the lesson that we have learnt from many years of studying free enterprise industries as opposed to nationalised industries.

Mr. Edwards: Will the Minister agree to meet the hospital consultants at Nevill Hall who, last week, expressed their deep anxiety about the whole concept of trust status? They believe that the principles of the NHS are being violated as a result of the policy.

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. I met the consultants of that hospital on 15 May and was able to reassure many of them about the basic principles of the scheme. It is for the health authority and the unit general manager to discuss with and explain to those consultants the principles behind the reforms. If Nevill Hall chooses to take the trust option it will remain an NHS hospital. If the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and


Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) does not understand the difference between what happened under the nationalised industries, which provided poor service—

Mr. Rowlands: Free enterprise is privatisation.

Mr. Bennett: One should study that analogy in terms of the quality of service provided under free enterprise. Within the state-owned NHS I want the same quality of service as that provided by free enterprise companies.

Mr. Michael: Given the nonsense that has been spouted at the Dispatch Box by the Minister, does he accept that the people of Wales are right to be frightened at having him as the Minister responsible for health? If the Minister will not listen to the fair criticism that the Labour party has made of his daft idea of hospital trusts and if he will not accept the truth from us—it has been given to him unstintingly—he should heed the advice offered by the South Wales Argus. Before the Monmouth campaign that paper said:
This thinly-disguised policy of putting cash before patients is already starting to make political waves and we predict that the storm is still brewing.
Does he accept that that storm is still in its early days? Does he accept that that storm and the people's dislike of the opt-out policy, which he is encouraging in Wales, will sweep him and his Government from power?

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman continues to try to misrepresent to the people of Wales the reality of the facts. No hospital will opt out of the NHS—it cannot under the Act of Parliament under which NHS trusts were established. The only money that will move around is that attached to the patient. It will be patient demand, supported by that from his doctor, which in future will ensure that we get the best quality of service—not decisions taken by management, as in the past. The money will follow the patient and that is how it should be.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Denzil Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the percentage increase in unemployment in Wales over the last (a) six months and (b) three months.

Mr. David Hunt: The figures are 24 per cent. and 13 per cent.

Mr. Davies: Those figures prove, if any proof was necessary, the disastrous effect of 12 years of Tory economic policies on Wales.

Mr. David Hunt: indicated dissent.

Mr. Davies: Instead of shaking his head, will the Secretary of State now admit that the Tory policies of the past 12 years have led not to an economic miracle but to an economic mirage? Does he further agree that those policies have converted and continue to convert Wales from a nation of producers and manufacturers into a candy-floss service economy, ill-equipped to meet the challenges of the 1990s?

Mr. Hunt: It is not often that I accuse the right hon. Gentleman of talking nonsense, but he has just done that. In March 1979, the work force in Wales was 1,140,000. Since then it has risen and the December 1990 figure was 1,194,000. In the past five years the number of long-term

unemployed has reduced greatly. A great deal is happening in Wales to the good. Many businesses are reinvesting and we have a record level of inward investment.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the state that the Welsh economy would be in today if it were still dependent on those smokestack industries in which the Opposition are so rootedly entrenched? Is not it a fact that under the stewardship of my right hon. Friend and his predecessors, the Welsh Development Agency and other bodies have brought about the diversification of the Welsh economy, which has enabled it far better to resist the ravages of recession?

Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend and I am delighted to announce 14 marvellous projects which will be a tremendous boost for Wales. There are to be 14 new industrial projects, creating more than 700 new jobs and involving investment of more than £20 million. They are tangible evidence of the marvellous willingness and confidence of companies to invest in Wales.

Mr. Rowlands: Is not the Secretary of State very well aware of the serious job crisis in the communities that I represent following the closure of Thorn EMI and Hoover—neither of which is a smokestack industry? Is he further aware that we will be increasingly dependent on the development of local business, enterprise and industry? Has he recieved assurances from the major banks that they will be backing the valley businesses and communities both with overdraft facilities and, with the current crisis in interest rates, by passing on the reductions in interest rates during recent months?

Mr. Hunt: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the position in Merthyr. I hope that he will not—he did not do so today—try to say that the Thorn EMI closure is a direct result of the recession, because it is not. Nevertheless, it is a serious blow, with serious job consequences. We shall be doing everything possible to attract new businesses to Merthyr and we shall do our bests to persuade and encourage businesses already there to grow and expand.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about the banks, during recent weeks and months I have met their representatives in Wales and at their head offices in London, where I have put across the message that Wales has a thriving economy, that growth prospects are as marvellous as ever and that we hope to continue to have the banks' full support.

Mr. Barry Jones: Like the Secretary of State, I welcome the developments by Sony, British Airways and Toyota. However, will he admit that the Government neither understand nor care that their economic policies are hurting ordinary people in Wales? Has he forgotten that unemployment in Wales has risen by a quarter during the past six months, yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that that is a price worth paying? Indeed, the Secretary of State glibly said that Wales is bucking the trends. That is not good enough and he should admit his responsibility for the recession that is hurting Wales.

Mr. Hunt: We in Wales cannot isolate ourselves from the recession in the United Kingdom, just as the United Kingdom cannot isolate itself from the consequences of recession in many developed countries. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that, as well as announcing major news about jobs today, I have announced 41


projects this year, involving more than £246 million of new investment. I am happy to announce today that the total amount of inward investment in Wales last year and this year has just breached the £1 billion barrier.

Mr. Livsey: Will the Secretary of State note that he should reduce employment in the Welsh Office by sacking those officials who engineered what was, relatively speaking, the theft of the painting of Adelina Patti from Craig-y-nos castle in my constituency? Does not he have a moral duty to return the painting, which was sold to the National Museum of Wales for £9,000? Should not that painting be returned to Craig-y-nos castle, where it has hung for most of this century? The taking of the painting was a disgrace—it was, literally, selling off the family silver.

Mr. Hunt: I am not aware of any situation other than that the painting was properly valued and properly sold.

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales are doing more than one job and are thus counted more than once in the employment figures.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): Precise information on the number of people with more than one job, included in the civilian work force in employment estimates in Wales, is not available. However, the labour force survey estimated that 30,000 people in Wales had a second job in the spring of 1990.

Mr. Flynn: With their new-found interest in veracity, will Ministers note that 750,000 people are counted twice in the employment figures for Britain? Moreover, many millions of people are treated as full-time workers although they are doing part-time work and others, who are unemployed, have been redefined as sick or retired.
Will Ministers leave their Walter Mitty world of manic optimism and come into the real world in Wales every month, where, more and more people are feeling the daily insult of enforced unemployment? When will they hear clearly the message of Monmouth that the Government are clapped out and discredited and that they should go and go quickly?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I should have thought that the people of Wales and all hon. Members would prefer to listen to the excellent news given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a few months ago. He announced that so far this year the Welsh Office had supported 41 projects involving £246 million of new investment which have created nearly 3,700 new jobs and safeguarded well over 600 others. Fourteen projects were announced today. That is very good news for the people of Wales.
With regard to the 30,000 people in Wales who may have a second job, I remind hon. Members that many of us also have two jobs.

Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Minister accept that those items of good news, welcome though they are, are dwarfed by the bad news that we regularly receive in our constituencies? In Caerphilly, unemployment has increased by 37 per cent. in the past 12 months. We received a hammer blow when Penallta colliery was closed as a direct result of the Government's policies. At the same time, we are seeing the more insidious seeping away of the employment provided by smaller, localised enterprises.

Does not the Minister realise that the real causes of rising unemployment are high interest rates and the Government's disastrous economic policies?

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman dwarfs the good news. He talked about the closure of Penallta colliery. Nobody closed more collieries than the previous Labour Government. We had the task of bringing new jobs to Wales and we have done so with energy, vigour and success.

Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that if a person has two jobs, it does not necessarily mean that he is on low pay, as witnessed by the number of Labour Members who are also lawyers and journalists?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I agree with my hon. Friend, although perhaps I fall into that category myself; as a Member of Parliament and a Minister, I have two jobs. I must tell the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), who asked the original question, that the estimate of 30,000 people in Wales with two jobs must be treated carefully, because it is based on a sample of only 3,000 households and is subject to sampling errors. Of those 30,000, 24,000 were employees, 5,000 were self-employed and 1,000 were on Government training schemes.

Mr. Barry Jones: But still the redundancies rain down on Wales because of the Government's serious economic errors—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) is a Front-Bench spokesman and should leave the calling of Back-Bench hon. Members to the Chair rather than trying to interrupt in such a disgraceful manner. He should know better.

Mr. Rogers: The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) had only just arrived.

Mr. Jones: Will Ministers now acknowledge the seriousness and the depth of the recession in Wales? They repeatedly say, "Do not blame us—we are only the Government, we have no responsibility for the redundancies that keep raining down on the Welsh people." Since the Secretary of State took office, unemployment in Wales has increased dramatically, but neither the Minister nor his right hon. Friend has any strategy to deal with the problem.

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Hain. I am sorry—I call Sir Wyn Roberts first.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The Government have a strategy, as the hon. Gentleman knows only too well. Our task is to bring down inflation, and we are succeeding in that task. We know that bringing down inflation will increase unemployment, but only when we have reduced inflation will the country be able to return to its path of economic growth. We have taken such steps as are necessary to allow the economy to recover and get back on to that path of growth from the end of this year, and our policy is succeeding.
Does the hon. Gentleman support a high rate of inflation? I should not be surprised if he did, because high inflation rates were traditional under Labour Governments, especially the last, when the rate reached 27 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: I now call Mr. Peter Hain.

Mr. Hain: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is better to be called twice than not at all.

NHS Trusts

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to ballot local NHS staff and surrounding communities before proceeding with any further plans for hospitals to be granted trust status.

Mr. David Hunt: I have made it absolutely clear that the local community and staff of a potential NHS trust will be invited to comment during the statutory three-month public consultation on each of the formal applications received.

Mr. Hain: The Secretary of State is dodging the question. Following the disclosure of the fact that his officials are discussing the question of opting out with those responsible for administering Neath, Singleton and Morrison hospitals, does he agree that there are widespread fears about the impact of trust status on patient care and job losses? Will he agree to proper one-person-one-vote ballots of all local residents or, failing that, to proper ballots, through electoral college arrangements, of the community health council, the medical staff, and staff in the hospitals—or is the Welsh Office so wedded to the dogma of the No Turning Back group that it wishes to turn its back on patient care and democratic rights?

Mr. Hunt: I refer the hon. Gentleman to section 4 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, which will show him that we are talking about one health service body becoming another health service body. Trusts are defined as national health service bodies. That is a clear statement of the law—the hon. Gentleman knows that, and it is about time that he recognised it.
I make no apology for the fact that, as Secretary of State for Wales, I have secured record resources for the NHS in Wales, not only in cash terms but in real terms. For every man, woman and child in Wales, £602 is spent, and we are now trying to ensure that the record resources that we have won are concentrated on patient care.

Cataract Surgery, Gwynedd

Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give, for the latest available date, the total number of patients that have been treated at the specialist treatment centre for cataract surgery at Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor; and if he will separately distinguish by health authority the percentage of those patients whose residence is outside the Gwynedd health authority area.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: At 31 March 1991, a total of 306 patients had received treatment at the ophthalmic treatment centre at Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor. The percentage of outside referrals by district health authority were: Mid Glamorgan 2·6 per cent., West Glamorgan 1·0 per cent., Gwent 0·7 per cent., South Glamorgan 0·3 per cent., Powys 2·9 per cent., giving a total of 7·5 per cent.

Mr. Wardell: Will the Minister confirm that on 30 September last year 566 patients were waiting for non-urgent treatment as in-patients in Gwynedd, of whom 89 had been waiting for more than a year? At Singleton hospital in Swansea, the numbers of people who were

waiting totalled 1,345 and 476 respectively. Can the Minister tell the House what he and his officials have been doing to demonstrate that it was not an utter sham that only 23 people outside Gwynedd health authority were treated at the all-Wales regional centre for cataract surgery between 1 September 1990 and the end of March this year? What does the Minister have to say about that? What monitoring did his Department undertake? Is that really an all-Wales centre? Is not that situation an absolute scandal?

Mr. Bennett: The original contract with the treatment centre provided for 80 per cent. of patients to come from Gwynedd and 20 per cent. from outside. I am sorry that it has not reached the target of 20 per cent. for patients from outside Gwynedd health authority. Because of the transport arrangements between Bangor and the rest of Wales, I thought it important that we should establish another treatment centre in south Wales, at Bridgend, which will help people in that area to reach the treatment centre more quickly. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am keen to see the treatment centres used as much as possible, and I welcome the opportunity provided by this question to say that anyone who has a problem with receiving treatment for their cataracts, and who has waited for more than four months, is entitled to apply to go to the treatment centre.

University Hospital of Wales

Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to meet the chairman of South Glamorgan health authority to discuss the future status of the University hospital of Wales, Cardiff.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

Mr. Morgan: I will give another example of the problem to which the previous question referred. While the junior Minister has been going round trying to interest the University hospital of Wales in trust status, his waiting list policy has failed to stem the inexorable rise in numbers. As for the treatment centre at the Prince of Wales hospital, Rhydlafar, in my constituency, a patient from Clwyd arrived there last week for a knee operation, but because the centre had already reached its quota of three knees from Clwyd for this financial year, that patient returned home without undergoing an operation. Does the Minister agree that that is a further scandalous example of our market-driven health service? Is it not time he resigned and made way for a Minister who really wants to see a national health service in Wales?

Mr. Bennett: My interest in the NHS in Wales is exemplified by the fact that in the past two weeks I have visited all five of the hospitals which, between them, account for 50 per cent. of the waiting list. I have spoken to consultants and managers about how they may tackle the problems. The Government are interested. We spent: £5 million on the treatment initiative since 1986, and this year we have approved expenditure of £1·3 million towards the waiting list initiative, including the establishment of a fourth treatment centre. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me about the particular case that he mentioned, I will certainly investigate it. However, I cannot be expected to carry in my head the details of the 2·9 million people treated in Wales.

Welsh Language

Dr. Marek: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will widen the exemption from the study of Welsh as a second language at key stage four.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am satisfied that the limited exemptions we proposed are adequate to meet particular local circumstances.

Dr. Marek: Does the Minister agree that if a child reaches the age of 13 and he or she does not get on with learning Welsh as a second language, has no aptitude for it or, worse, simply hates the Welsh language, it is counter-productive for the Minister to insist that such a child should continue to learn Welsh as a second language? Does the Minister agree that it is also counter-productive for the well-being and prosperity of the language itself, which we all want to see?

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman's remarks about a child's aptitude for learning Welsh are surely true of any subject in the national curriculum. Is he suggesting that a child who does not show an aptitude for mathematics, English, or any other curriculum subject, should be allowed to opt out of it at the age of 13?

Mr. Butler: Will my hon. Friend say what measures he has taken to ensure an adequate supply of teachers of Welsh as a second language and as a first language?

Sir Wyn Roberts: We have taken substantial steps to ensure that there is an adequate supply of teachers. Clearly, there will be more teachers of Welsh and of subjects taught through the medium of Welsh in the coming years. Welsh is regarded and registered as a shortage subject.
We have provided bursaries to encourage students to go in for teaching Welsh. We have encouraged teachers on initial training courses to take up Welsh, and we are spending a record sum of £1·8 million this year alone on in-service training for teachers. I am delighted to say that many non-Welsh-speaking teachers are showing considerable interest in learning to teach the language.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the figure for male unemployment in Wales expressed in percentage terms; and what was the comparable figure for the three previous years.

Mr. David Hunt: The rate was 11·2 per cent; for previous years the rates were 8·2 per cent. for 1990, 9·5 per cent. for 1989 and 12·5 per cent. for 1988.

Mr. Hughes: Is it not appalling that, after 12 long years of Conservative Government, unemployment in Wales is once again rocketing? Does the Secretary of State recall that Newport was to be the flagship of Government policies? Yet Newport, East—my constituency—is now among the areas worst affected by unemployment. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that my constituents do not believe that it is worth paying that price for the follies of the Government.

Mr. Hunt: If the hon. Gentleman probes the figures that I announced, and considers the long-term unemployed, about whom I was especially concerned a few years ago, he will see that in the past five years the number of long-term

unemployed has fallen from 78,014 to 25,626—a steeper reduction than that in the United Kingdom as a whole. We ought to be shouting about those successes rather than preaching gloom and doom. I shall continue to sing the praises of Wales as the place to invest, whether companies are already established there or are coming to Wales for the first time.

Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall not take a point of order now. I shall take it at the end of Question Time.

Mr. Rogers: It is the end of Welsh Question time.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take the point of order at the end of Question Time.

Mr. Rogers: You have taken points of order during Question Time before, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I ask the hon. Gentleman not to argue with the Chair. Sit down, please.

Mr. Rogers: But you have taken points of order—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a Front-Bench spokesman and knows far better than that. He knows that I take points of order after questions, and I shall take his point of order then, even though I suspect that I know what it is.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

London Arts Funding

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will meet local authority leaders to discuss arts funding in London.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Tim Renton): In consultation with ministerial colleagues, I am currently considering how arrangements for the funding of the arts in London can be improved. As part of that process, we are seeking the views of the funding agencies and other interested bodies.

Mr. Banks: Is the Minister aware that about 200,000 jobs in London are dependent on the arts, entertainment and culture, and that there is an arts crisis in the capital city, brought about by the recession, the pressure on local authorities, and the derisory 2 per cent. that Greater London Arts has been given by the Arts Council? Will the Minister make it clear to the House—he has not done so in the past—that he is prepared to meet the Association of London Authorities and the London Boroughs Association? The resolution of the arts crisis in London will determine whether he will be considered a good Minister for the Arts or someone from the Herman Goering school of culture.

Mr. Renton: I wholly disagree with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there is a crisis in the arts in London. Does crisis mean a time when the new Sackler gallery at the Royal Academy is about to open, as are the Sainsbury wing at the National Gallery and the Tsui gallery at the Victoria and Albert museum? The Royal Shakespeare Company is successfully back at the Barbican, and the National theatre is having an immensely successful season. If that is crisis, give me crisis. The hon.


Gentleman should know, too, that there are some exciting new projects being founded in Newham—the Atherton arts centre, for example, and a short-term post at the Gill gallery.
Certainly I am willing to meet the bodies that the hon. Gentleman suggests, but it does no good for him or for others to talk about a crisis that simply does not exist.

Mr. Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that London is the arts capital of the world, with a fine range of theatres, concerts, operas, ballets, museums and art galleries which taken together, comprise a priceless national asset? Does he agree that it is utterly disgraceful that it should be constantly run down by Opposition Members?

Mr. Renton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's remarks. At the moment, we are witnessing a number of very great successes in the arts world in London. Difficulties have, indeed, arisen in connection with the London boroughs grants scheme, and I regret that it took so long for a budget to be decided upon. I urged those involved to speed the process up, and I have talked about the matter with the Secretary of State for the Environment. It is, none the less, worth remembering that, despite difficulties with eight companies—the LBGS clients which may face closure—Greater London Arts is supporting 161 revenue clients and 1,000 project-funded clients, and the LBGS still supports some 114 artistic companies. Those are all signs not of crisis but of a very active arts scene in London.

Mr. Fisher: I welcome the fact that, after six months of developing crisis, the Minister is at long last prepared to say that he will meet his colleagues, and meet the bodies that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) suggested. That is a constructive move, but it has taken a long time. When the Minister meets those concerned, will he at last take it from them that there is a crisis in the arts in London, and that it is a crisis caused by his Government's poll tax, which is taking more than £3 million away from community arts in London? The Minister may not reckon that community arts are very important, but I hope that he will listen to those concerned and understand that they are indeed important. Unless the Minister addresses that problem and keeps an open mind about it, the fact that he has sat there doing nothing for six months will be to his discredit.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman exaggerates to such an extent as to make his own argument absurd. He knows that there is not a £3 million shortage or deficit in arts funding in London. In fact, there is a £400,000 shortage—a 15 per cent. reduction—this year. What arts body in London have I refused to meet in the past six months when it wished to see me about an arts problem? The answer is none. The hon. Gentleman speaks of crisis so often that he himself is suffering from crisis fatigue. His solution is to reinvent the greater London authority. He does not seem to realise that a Ken Livingstone mark 2 would have the same effect on the arts bodies as a rebirth of Dracula would have on those suffering from pernicious anaemia.

Mr. Chris Smith: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he intends to meet the chair of Greater London Arts to discuss arts funding in London.

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will meet the chair of Greater London Arts to discuss the state of arts services in London.

Mr. Renton: I have no further plans to meet the chair of Greater London Arts. I intend to meet Mr. Clive Priestley, the chair-designate of the London Arts Board, from time to time to discuss matters of mutual interest.

Mr. Smith: The Minister speaks as though there are no problems with the arts in London. He must know, in his heart of hearts, that that is far from the truth. He must know that the sheer deficiencies of the London boroughs grants scheme, as a scheme, have led to substantial cuts in the arts in London in recent months. He must know that the Arts Council has given only 2·5 per cent. —way below inflation—in increased funding to Greater London Arts this year. He must know that a number of arts institutions—including, for example, the Almeida and King's Head theatres in my constituency—are in serious peril as a result of the problems that we face. It is time that the Minister put his money where his mouth is and devoted extra funds to supporting the arts in London, rather than continuing—however many talks he may have—to wash his hands of the problem.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman is being less than honest and less than frank. The Almeida theatre has had its funding increased by 8 per cent. by Greater London Arts, which is indirectly funded by my office. He should know that and he should recognise it. The body that is riot increasing the theatre's funding is Islington borough council. As I have told the hon. Gentleman before, he should bring his influence to bear to ensure that Labour councillors do not simply push their arts clients over the table into the waste paper basket when there are financial difficulties—often created by the councillors themselves—in their area.

Mr. Cohen: Will the Minister welcome Labour's innovative idea of a London leisure card, which will give reduced admission for Londoners to all sorts of events? The Minister has not had such an idea in all his term in office—unless he can cite one to the House now. As far as the capital of culture is concerned, he is rapidly becoming known as the Minister of farce, not arts.

Mr. Renton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman could amuse himself greatly in a London leisure park. He would fit in very well indeed and his presence there would cause great mirth to Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Bowis: Will my right hon. Friend thank the London arts, past and present, and the Arts Council of Great Britain for coming to the rescue of those London arts bodies that have been abandoned by the London boroughs grants scheme, and will he seek an early conclusion to the abolition of that body, which is Labour run? It bodes ill for any proposed Londonwide scheme set up by the Labour party that the London boroughs grants scheme under that party and with Liberal collusion has let down the arts in London.

Mr. Renton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's sensible and balanced comments. The Arts Council—and Greater London Arts, shortly to be replaced by the London Arts Board—are doing their stuff as regards funding arts organisations in London. I agree with him that where it has gone wrong in recent months has been


with the London boroughs grants scheme and it is for precisely that reason that, in an answer to an earlier question, I said that I am discussing with ministerial colleagues whether the LBGS should continue in its present form or whether there is some better means of directing that funding to arts clients in London without creating a greater London authority mark 2—as the Labour party would, with about 20,000 civil servants, if past experience is anything to go by.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there should be no more haemorrhaging of funds for the arts from London to the regions? [HON. MEMBERS' "No!"] I am not saying that there should not be more funds for London and the regions, but it would be quite wrong to advantage the regions to the disadvantage of Londoners as regards the arts, important though both the regions and London are.

Mr. Renton: Much as I respect my hon. Friend's determination to fight the Ealing corner, I do not agree with his general comments. London is still the best funded of all the regions on the basis of arts money per head of population, even when funding of the nationals is taken out of consideration. It is important for the Arts Council to spread the money available around to the most distant parts of the United Kingdom to encourage al sorts of art festivals in every part of the land.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Ministerial Duties

Mr. Favell: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how much of his time is spent on civil service matters.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Tim Renton): In the past months, approximately 20 per cent., but obviously that can and would be varied in the light of any specific requirements.

Mr. Favell: With the establishment of next steps executive agencies, does my right hon. Friend spend more or less time on civil service matters?

Mr. Renton: From my point of view, with the establishment of so many next steps agencies the difference is that I make certain that I call on the agency in any part of the country that I am visiting. That gives me the opportunity to find out how for example the employment or the HMSO executive agencies are working out and to get some first-hand idea of the successes and of the continuing challenges remaining to the agencies.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the right hon. Gentleman take time off from his work on civil service matters to consider, wearing his other hat, the predicament of the National theatre?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Not on this question.

Press Officers

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many former press officers have been vetted by the business appointments committee for subsequent employment in the last 12 months.

Mr. Renton: It is not our practice to provide detailed information of this kind about the operation of business appointment rules. Individual applications are received and treated in confidence.

Mr. Banks: Would it not be appropriate for Sir Bernard Ingham to be vetted as a former press officer—preferably with two bricks? After all, he played the role of deputy Prime Minister, undermined democratically elected Cabinet Ministers, contravened the Official Secrets Act and knows where all the bodies are buried. Is it not outrageous that he can go outside the civil service and earn vast amounts of money for those misdeeds?

Mr. Renton: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has a lot of fun asking such a question, but for two years Sir Bernard Ingham cannot take up any outside commercial appointment without first seeking approval and without the application being scrutinised by the advisory committee on business appointments, which is chaired by Lord Carlisle.

Sir Michael Marshall: Is it not true that, subject to the appropriate vetting to which my right hon. Friend referred, there is every incentive to allow senior civil servants to move into industry? We need more interchange between the civil service and the private sector. One of our great national failings is that there is not enough.

Mr. Renton: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is much more interchange between the private sector and the civil service in France, permitting a much more balanced and wide-ranging career structure. Interchange is to be encouraged.

Civil Service Fast Stream

Mr. Jessel: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how he proposes to further encourage applications for the civil service fast stream from non-Oxbridge and polytechnic graduates.

Mr. Renton: It is the Government's policy to encourage the widest possible spread of applications for the fast stream. In 1990, applications were received from more than 90 degree-awarding institutions other than Oxbridge.

Mr. Jessel: Can my right hon. Friend project the trend and say what proportion of the fast stream this year are likely to be non-Oxbridge?

Mr. Renton: No, I cannot do that because the first round of interviews is taking place now at colleges and polytechnics. In 1985, 42 per cent. came from Oxbridge, in 1989 the figure was 36 per cent., and last year it was 34 per cent.

Dr. Marek: The Minister is very good at giving platitudes to the House and being rude to my hon. Friends. I give him a chance to answer a question straightforwardly and, at the same time, to increase the percentage of the time that he spends on civil service matters. If only a third of successful applicants to the fast stream come from outside Oxbridge, that is unsatisfactory. Will the Minister meet representatives of the civil service trade unions to thrash out a generally agreed programme of action to correct the clear injustice being done to applicants from outside Oxbridge? I suspect that the same request also applies to question No. 43.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman accuses me of exchanging platitudes. In fact, I was exchanging statistics, but I do not think that he listened. I said that in 1990 only one third-34 per cent.—of fast-stream entrants came from Oxbridge, as opposed to 42 per cent. in 1985. So it is one third, not two thirds, so perhaps he will listen more attentively. I am always prepared to meet representatives of the civil service. If they want to discuss a matter, I should be glad to meet them. The trend of broadening the range of colleges and polytechnics from which fast stream applicants are welcomed is working satisfactorily.

"Kill the Messenger"

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will obtain a copy of "Kill the Messenger" by Sir Bernard Ingham for his office's library.

Mr. Renton: No, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: To return to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), does the Minister realise that many of my hon. Friends do not think that there is anything funny about Sir Bernard Ingham's activities during the past 12 years? What is so special about Sir Bernard Ingham's position that the two-year rule has not applied to his book? Can any other civil servant now take it as a matter of course that he or she will be entitled to go away and write a book about the heart of Government?

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman is being unfair and incorrect, Sir Bernard Ingham submitted his memoirs to Sir Robin Butler as Cabinet Secretary and head of the civil service. Sir Robin Butler cleared the draft of the book, Sir Bernard Ingham made all the cuts requested and is not responsible for the Sunday Times article.

Mr. Conway: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his reply to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and find the money to buy a copy of the book? If he has any money left, will he obtain a remaindered copy of the Crossman diaries to find out how effective intrigue and political assassination were at the time of the last Labour Government?

Mr. Renton: I support my hon. Friend's remarks. Those Opposition Members who get so worked up about Sir Bernard Ingham's book would do well to refresh their minds about what happened under the Government of Lord Wilson in relation to the Crossman diaries and the memoirs of Joe Haines. As to whether I shall buy a copy of the book, my office is dedicated to efficiency and value for money, but one of my private secretaries has kindly lent me her copy.

Promotion

Sir Michael Marshall: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will ensure that promotion within the senior civil service gives due weight to experience in executive agencies and practical management skills in the future.

Mr. Renton: Yes. Management skills and experience are increasingly important for those seeking civil service posts. The opportunities for management experience provided by

next steps agencies and by interchange with business at all levels will undoubtedly enhance the skills of many civil servants.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Skinner—[Interruption.] I am getting confused. Sir Michael Marshall.

Sir Michael Marshall: A natural mistake, Mr. Speaker.
Apropos my earlier comments this afternoon, does my right hon. Friend realise that I would warmly welcome anything to improve the opportunity for interchange between industry and the civil service, particularly in management training? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the possibility of using British business schools for civil servants—a subject on which, in the past, it has proved impossible to persuade Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Renton: I never thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) would be mistaken for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). That is a new sort of interchange—quite different from that to which my hon. Friend referred.
I agree with the spirit of what my hon. Friend said. In 1989, there were 432 secondments of more than three months' duration from the civil service to industry, compared with 331 in 1988. If we can take advantage of the business school experience to which my hon. Friend referred, I shall suggest to civil servants in my Department that we do so.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Hon. Members: Sir Dennis.

Trade Unions

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last discussed the question of civil service conditions of work with trade union representatives; arid if he will make a statement.

Mr. Renton: rose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on!"] It was the reference to "Sir Dennis" that upset me.
I meet civil service trade union representatives from time to time to discuss a wide variety of issues.

Mr. Skinner: Being knighted does not upset me because it ain't going to happen.
In his discussions with trade union representatives, will the Minister bear in mind that it is high time that he stopped slagging off low-paid civil servants who are trying to keep their wages in relation to inflation and compare them with some of the bosses in British industry such as the head of British Telecom, who was given an increase of 43 per cent. last week? Instead of offering these civil servants between 6 and 7 per cent., why do the Government not give them the going rate that their bosses got last year, which was 22·7 per cent?

Mr. Renton: First, I congratulate the hon. Member on sticking to his principles and not going to the Labour fund-raising banquet last week with all the glitterati. I agree with his thoughts about smoked salmon socialism.
As for the hon. Gentleman's comments about low-paid civil servants, the average settlement this year is in the range of 8 to 8·5 per cent.—well ahead of the current rate of inflation. I am glad to say that many civil servants will benefit from that.

Mr. Alan Rogers: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Now, what is this point of order?

Mr. Rogers: First, I want to say how sorry I am to have shouted at you, Mr. Speaker, in the middle of Question Time. However, 1 am sure that you understand the strength of the feelings of Welsh Opposition Members. We have only 40 minutes of Welsh questions each month and we do not have the discretion to run over by four minutes, as happened in this instance—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the question is being addressed to me.

Mr. Rogers: The Opposition are in a difficult position. When the rules on Welsh Question Time were laid down, we had a certain number of Welsh Members. In the past year or so, we have anihilated the Government by winning by-elections. There is now severe pressure on the time during which Opposition Members can participate in Welsh questions. As many of us refrain from interfering in other Question Times because we want to bring matters up during Welsh Question Time, will you, Mr. Speaker, look at the rules under which Wesh Question Time takes place with a view to extending the time?
Meanwhile, the Government have to introduce all sorts of strange individuals to put questions—especially those who roll in here, are called about 10 seconds later, and put questions that have nothing to do with their constituencies. Will you please look at the matter?

Mr. Speaker: I am well aware of the frustration of not being called at Question Time. As I said, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) is himself a Front-Bench spokesman, and I call Front-Bench Members whenever they rise. Today I called 18 Welsh Opposition Members, and I call seven Conservative Members, of whom three had questions on the Order Paper. I do not think that that balance gives the Government side an unfair advantage—indeed, rather the reverse.

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am still on my feet.
Furthermore, this is a United Kingdom Parliament. The hon. Member for Rhondda is a Front-Bench spokesman on defence and he fully expects to take part in Defence Question Time. I must tell him and other Front-Bench Members that I regret that during questions to other Departments I cannot give them the same preference that I give to Back-Bench Members because they have an automatic right to be called when they sit on the Front Bench.

Mr. Alan Williams: We well understand the need to continue to recognise that this is a United Kingdom Parliament. However, I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, understand that it is offensive to those of us who have so limited an opportunity to represent the point of view of our constituents if an hon. Member comes into the Chamber, sits down and within seconds is called when those of us who have been sitting here since the start of Question Time—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot always take account of when hon. Members come in—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not have eyes in the back of my head. I seek to keep a balance.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: rose—

Hon. Members: What about Dickens?

Mr. Speaker: I could hardly mistake him.

Mr. Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I really think that we have had enough of this. We have a guillotine today. However, as I have mentioned the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), I will call him.

Mr. Dickens: I have been here for Northern Irish questions, for Scottish questions and for Welsh questions. As millions of pounds from England is spent on those countries, I feel entitled to come to Welsh Question Time and to scrutinise how money is spent. We pour in millions of pounds to support Wales.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we have had enough of this now.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &amp;C.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the eighth motion relating to statutory instruments is not to be moved. With the leave of the House, I will put together the remaining seven questions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Vienna Document (Privileges and Immunities) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 1235) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 2) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 1295) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 3) Order 1991 (S.I. 1991, No. 1296) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990 (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990 (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Confiscation of the Proceeds of Drug Trafficking (Designated Countries and Territories) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If I take points of order now, that will take time from the guillotine motion—

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Sit down, please. Points of order now take time from the allocation of time motion and the Second Reading, and a great many right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in that debate.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you would agree in the circumstances that it would not be right to proceed with the important legislation that we are about to debate without acknowledging the tremendous English success in the test match. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport is at the Bar of the Chamber, it would be appropriate for the House to convey to the England team, to my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister its enormous thanks to the efforts of our team and the inspiration of our Ministers.

Mr. Speaker: I am not certain whether there is any Government responsibility for that.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I point out to the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) that it was not an English cricket team, but a British cricket team? The principal bowler is from Glamorgan.

Mr. Speaker: That is very good news.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does this have something to do with the Bermondsey cricket team?

Mr. Hughes: No, I wish it had. What is it necessary for my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) to do as the Liberal Democrats' art spokesman other than to table a question for the ballot, attend throughout Question Time and rise at each opportunity in order to be called on the rare occasion—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can give the hon. Gentleman a short answer. The questions were about London, and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) is not a London Member.

Mr. Maclennan: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

Mr. Maclennan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should reflect that he has asked to be called on the guillotine motion and on Second Reading. Is it not overdoing it a bit to be asked to be called at Question Time as well?

Mr. Maclennan: During Welsh questions you made it plain that one does not need to be a Welsh person to ask questions about Wales. By the same token, one does not need to be a Londoner to ask questions about the arts in London. Furthermore, the opportunity to ask questions about the arts is limited—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is challenging my discretion. If he looks at the Order Paper, he will see how difficult it would have been for me to go over to his side of the Chamber, given that questions Nos. 32 and 33 today were linked in that short time. I am very sorry that I could not call the hon. Gentleman. As the Leader of the Opposition said when I was chosen as Speaker on the second occasion, unhappily in this Chamber no hon. Member can expect to be called on the day he wants, on the subject he wants and at the time he wants.

Mr. Ron Davies: I hesitate to intervene, Mr. Speaker, but further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), you directly contradicted your earlier ruling. May I remind you that in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), you said that you were quite happy to call hon. Members from whichever part of the United Kingdom they represented because the matters were before the House and this is a United Kingdom Parliament. However, in reply to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, you specifically said that you refused to call the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) because the matters on the Order Paper were London matters and he had no constituency interest in them. Those two rulings are absolutely contradictory. I press on you the point raised—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who was called today, would be best advised to come and have a glass of milk with me later this evening and I will explain my difficulties in calling every hon. Member who wishes to participate in Welsh or Scottish questions. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) can come too.

Mr. Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that during Arts questions you called eight Members to speak about Greater London arts funding seven of whom were from London. Those of us who were also bobbing up and down at the time trying to catch your eye to explain that arts exist in the regions—[Interruption.]—have not complained about that in points of order. However, we observe that hon. Members on the Liberal Benches, who get a disproportionate opportunity to take part, leave the Chamber as soon as they have recorded a view—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Dangerous Dogs Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Dangerous Dogs Bill—

Second Reading

1. The proceedings on Second Reading shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

Committee

2. (1) In Committee, proceedings on any new Clauses relating to the registration of dogs shall be taken before proceedings on the Clauses.

(2) Proceedings in Committee on new Clauses relating to the registration of dogs shall be brought to a conclusion at 1 a.m. at this day's sitting.

(3) The remaining proceedings in Committee shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion at 3 a.m.

Report and Third Reading

3. The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion at 4 a.m.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

4. On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and if he reports the Bill with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill, as amended, without any Question being put.

Order of proceedings

5. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration are taken.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings at this day's sitting shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time

7. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings at this day's sitting.

Conclusion of proceedings

8.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order at this day's sitting.

(2) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(3) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (2) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(4) If a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings which, under this

Order are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

9.—(l) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

(2) If at this day's sitting the House is adjourned, or if this day's sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

10. Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which this Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by this Order; or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommital

11.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages, respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommital.

(2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Business Committee

12. Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

I can explain quite briefly why the Government have tabled this timetable motion for the Dangerous Dogs Bill, as well as outline how it provides for proceedings on the Bill today to be conducted. I shall not say much about the substance of the Bill—that will be for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in subsequent speeches.

I made it clear in the course of Business Questions last Thursday, when I announced the timetable motion, why the Government consider it essential to get this Bill through its Commons stages as quickly as possible. Our constituents, the country as a whole, but, most of all, those who have been affected by the menace of fighting dogs, or who go in fear of them, would not forgive us if we failed to get legislation to control those deadly animals in place at the earliest possible opportunity.

The House knows that, following the consultation paper published in June last year, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had made it clear that he would be bringing forward proposals this summer—that is, of course, in relation to other than fighting dogs. It obviously makes sense now to include in the Bill the new offence of allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place, and the power for the courts to specify measures, including muzzling, to be taken to control any dog considered likely to be dangerous. The Bill also provides, in clause 2, additional reserve powers for the Secretary of State to deal with other types of dog that present a serious danger to the public. But it is for the provisions on pit bull terriers and other fighting dogs in clause 1 that speed is so necessary.

We intend that almost all the criminal offences should come into force very quickly after the Bill becomes law. Once the Bill is enacted, it will be an offence to breed those


dogs, sell them, give them away, advertise them for sale or exchange or as a gift, abandon them, or let them stray. It will be an offence not to have those dogs on a lead and muzzled. It will also be an offence to allow any dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place.

Those are vital parts of the Bill which we need to have in place for the summer, particularly in relation to breeding and having the dogs on a lead and muzzled. That is fully set out in clause 1(2). The Bill therefore needs to pass through all its stages if we are to achieve that by the summer recess.

It is also essential that we put in place as quickly as possible the compensation and exemption schemes so that owners who wish to have their dogs put down and seek compensation and those who wish to retain their dogs, subject to very strict conditions, should be able to do that before the offence of possessing a prohibited dog comes into force on 30 November.

Indeed, I suspect that many members of the public who do not understand the technicalities of these matters may be puzzled and concerned as to why they have to wait that long—till 30 November—before the full provisions of the Bill are in place relating to the putting down of all dogs not licensed, the neutering of those that are licensed, and public protection and compensation through insurance.

Mr. David Winnick: Of course, the Government could have acted earlier. Is not it unique for a guillotine motion to be moved by the Government when there is very broad support for the Bill on Opposition Benches? In itself, that is a unique measure. Is not the truth —if the Leader of the House really wishes to be honest about it—that he fears that there is growing support on his side, as well as, obviously, on this side, for a dog registration scheme, which, for some odd reason, the Government are refusing to support?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall refer briefly to the dog registration aspect in relation to the guillotine in a moment, but the detailed issues of dog registration are for a later debate. I will certainly deal with that matter in a moment, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that this is a unique measure and that it has support across the House. That is an important point which I shall address in a moment in relation to the timetable motion.

Mr. Winnick: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. What I said was that it was unique for the Government to introduce a guillotine motion when there is broad support for the Bill.

Mr. MacGregor: All right. To take up exactly the hon. Gentleman's point, I am grateful that he regards it that way. However, as I shall make clear in a moment, even if there is widespread support for the Bill throughout the House, a timetable motion is necessary if we are to achieve the timetable for the implementation of the Bill that I have outlined. I shall come to that issue at the appropriate point in my remarks.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: As the Home Secretary wants to rush this Bill through, and as people out there with pit bull terriers have told Members of Parliament, including myself, that they cannot get insurance for their dogs, will the Leader of the House have a word with the Home Secretary? If there will not be much time to debate the matter, before the Leader of the House sits down he

ought, having had a word with the Home Secretary, to tell the House, in the short time available, which insurance firms are prepared to take on the insurance of these dogs. People out there want to know.

Mr. MacGregor: That is a fair point, but I do not believe that it is one for the timetable motion. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will deal with that matter. There will be plenty of time during the proceedings later today for him to do so, and I am sure that he will.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: My right hon. Friend is appealing to the members of the public, many of whom will be unable to understand why the legislation cannot come into force immediately. Is it not both his and the Government's job to explain to those many members of the public that legislation is best conducted slowly and by the normal rules, and also to explain that that is the way in which the interests of minorities who are affected are best safeguarded?

Mr. MacGregor: I hope to come shortly to that passage in my speech which explains exactly why we are endeavouring to get the Bill on the statute book as quickly as possible, which I am confident is what the public want, and yet provide enough time for debate to ensure that those interests are safeguarded.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: While the Leader of the House goes about explaining all this, will he also tell the general public why it was that, when the provisions that are in front of the House today were in front of the House in March 1990, the Government voted them down? If there is such great enthusiasm for this Bill, why did the Government not support the amendment to the Environmental Protection Bill that would have met all the demands that are now included in this Bill?

Mr. MacGregor: I think that we are now getting to the substance of the Bill. These are certainly points that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will happily take up on Second Reading. I am anxious to stick to explaining the urgency of the Bill and the manner in which we are endeavouring to achieve its implementation, not to go over all the details of the Bill. That, I believe, would he self-defeating.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Although I recognise the need for speed, I called on the Government to ban the import of pit bull terriers eight years ago. It is a pity that they did not take my advice at that time. Although we recognise the need for speed, it is essential that the Bill should become an effective instrument. A number of people have observed deficiences in it—for example, one in clause 4 that needs to be put right. The need for speed should not remove the need for accuracy in legislation that we pass in this place.

Mr. MacGregor: I had hoped to deal with that point also at the appropriate place in my argument, but let me deal with it now. There will be opportunities in the House, during what will effectively be a two-day debate, to deal with all these issues. All the amendments are in front of us. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has gone through them all. There will also be opportunities in the other place. Furthermore, if necessary, the Bill can return to this place.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Mr. MacGregor: Before I give way again—I have done so very generously—may I finish the point that I was raising?
Many members of the public may well be puzzled and concerned about why we have to wait until 30 November before those parts of the Bill that relate to the putting down of dogs and to the introduction of the new system for fighting dogs are in place. Of course, the House understands why we must wait until 30 November—

Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacGregor: If I may, I shall finish my argument first.
To many people, when they know that these fighting dogs will still be around, 30 November looks a long time away. I do not know what position the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) took when the dogs were first allowed to be imported, but that was when the pass was sold. It was a considerable time ago, under a previous Government.
Two points are worth spelling out in detail so that everyone, not only in the House but in the country, fully appreciates the need for speed. Here I wish to respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen).
First, there must be a reasonable period for owners to make their decisions about the alternative course of action that they wish to pursue, then to complete the necessary procedures. That period can begin only when Royal Assent has been achieved. This is based on the assumption that Royal Assent will be given by the summer—hence the need to get Royal Assent as quickly as possible. Otherwise, these provisions may not be in place until the end of February next year. I believe that we would be open to justifiable criticism—

Mr. Bruce Grocott: The right hon. Gentleman does not believe a word of it.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman obviously does not understand. These are simple, straightforward facts. This is the basis on which the decision has been taken. If the House of Commons and the other place decided to adopt these measures as a protection for the public, we would be open to justifiable criticism if we subjected innocent citizens to the risk of further serious injury for those additional months.
That brings me to the second point: why is it necessary to timetable the Bill this week to meet the deadline of achieving Royal Assent by the summer recess? As I worked the timetable back, it became clear to me that it was necessary to get the Bill to the House of Lords before the end of this week. The reason for that is that it would not be possible to abbreviate the customary procedures in the House of Lords. Given also the possibility—which I must take into account—of further exchanges between the House of Lords and the House of Commons after the Lords have completed their consideration of the Bill, that target of passing the Bill effectively sets itself, if we are to be sure of meeting the target of Royal Assent by the summer recess.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Has my right hon. Friend taken note of the fact that his arguments almost perfectly match those on the Football Spectators Bill? We were told that there was an imperative need to pass that Bill or terrible things would happen. A monkey was made of the House. Should we not treat this Bill a little more cautiously than my right hon. Friend has suggested?

Mr. MacGregor: If my hon. Friend does not want the Bill to be passed, he can advance his arguments against aspects of it on Second Reading and in Committee. He seems to be doubtful whether we should consider the Bill quickly. I believe that that is not the view that the country will take, that it wants the measure put on the statute book quickly. What is more—

Mr. Harry Ewing: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: Let me finish this point.
It was clear during questions on several business statements that I have made in recent weeks, particularly in the exchanges last Thursday, that the Bill has the support of everyone in the House. That is an important aspect of the Bill.

Mr. Ewing: Is the Leader of the House aware that I am angry at the fact that he chose 30 November as the implementation date of the Bill? Is he aware that that is St. Andrew's day? The Home Secretary has made such a dog's breakfast of this issue that we should implement the Bill on his birthday, if only to commemorate his ineptitude and incompetence.

Mr. MacGregor: As one who attended St. Andrew's university, I regard that as a feeble point. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman might be pleased that everything to ensure the protection of the public would be in operation by that date.

Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the constant appeals to popular opinion will stick in some of our throats? Is it not his job to explain to popular opinion that the normal legislative procedures give safeguards to everybody who might be concerned, especially in this case, where there is the strong suspicion that the Government might be legislating simply as a result of pressure from popular newspapers? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that there should be a proper gap between Second Reading and Committee stage, so that those who have seen the Government change their position on many occasions will have a proper opportunity to put forward their views and to explain why the Government may be wrong in some details?

Mr. MacGregor: By being as quick as I can, I hope that I shall be able to give my hon. Friend and the other hon. Members who wish to explain their views the opportunity to do so. I totally reject the view that the Bill has been introduced in response to pressure from some popular newspapers. It has been introduced in response to widespread public concern, which is totally shared by all members of the Government, at some of the recent incidents in which innocent people have been injured by pit bull terriers. As a party to the introduction of the Bill and being strongly in favour of it, I have been motivated by the thought that more innocent people—children and adults —might be—

Mr. Michael J. Martin: rose—

Mr. 'Terry Lewis: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit.

Mr. MacGregor: I thought that we might hear something like that today.
We have a duty to protect the public from fighting dogs. We can all think of what could happen to innocent citizens. Given that that is the decision that we have reached, it seems right to proceed with the Bill speedily, so that we can achieve our objective of protecting the public. That is not only the view of some popular newspapers; it is widespread in the House.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: rose—

Mr. Lewis: rose—

Mr. Robert Maclennan: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: Although I must get on, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who has not yet intervened.

Mr. Maclennan: Does not the Leader of the House recognise that his argument about the need to have the matter concluded before the summer recess would carry some credibility if he had approached the Opposition parties about a sensible timetable motion, instead of simply tabling something without any consultation? The only approach to my party concerned the sensitive question of registration and our attitude to it.

Mr. MacGregor: The Government had to take into account the timetable that I am still outlining. So far, I have dealt only with the point about protecting the public from attacks by fighting dogs. I have two other points to make in relation—

Mr. Michael J. Martin: rose

Mr. Lewis: rose

Mr. MacGregor: I must be allowed to answer. I am halfway through a sentence in response to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland. If hon. Members continue to interrupt my speech, I shall not give way to them, because they are being most unfair. I have two other points to make about the need for speed.
In the timetable motion, we have responded to the desire not only of the Opposition but of many hon. Members for another debate on dog registration and have taken that desire fully into account. However, when engaging in discussions with all concerned about not having any timetable motion, I have also had to bear in mind the fact that we all know of the risk that it might not be possible to ensure that everything that has been agreed between the usual channels will be adhered to unless we have a timetable motion. I have been trying to meet what I know are the wishes of the House, while also achieving speed. As we do not want to spend all our time on this point, perhaps I can now be allowed to get on with the arguments with which I should like to finish my speech.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: I am not giving way for the moment. I am sorry, but I must get on.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. As a great many hon. Members wish to participate in the Second Reading debate, it might be helpful if we could now get on.

Mr. MacGregor: There are further reasons why speed is essential. There is clearly a danger that those involved in the breeding of fighting dogs may seek to make the maximum use of any time that remains before the Bill reaches the statute book, so we want the Bill to be enacted as soon as possible, before there are large numbers of additional prohibited dogs.
Another more technical reason for speed concerns the import ban. As the House knows, an import ban on these fighting dogs was introduced when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made his statement to the House. Maintaining an import ban without a corresponding domestic ban would place us in breach of our international obligations. We must therefore underwrite the import ban by putting the domestic controls in place as soon as possible.
Those who sit on the Opposition Front Bench have said that they will co-operate in getting the Bill through the House quickly to meet the deadline to which I have already referred. That, however, does not guarantee the necessary speed. Even if most hon. Members say that they will co-operate in dealing with the Bill speedily, and those who have spoken so far have taken that view, the Government must be sure, in the interests of protecting the public, that the House as a whole meets the deadline.
Moreover, we have other vital business to get through this week, and a Supply day. We have a commitment to the Opposition, and to the House in general, to the number of Supply days in the Session, and I need to find regular time to fulfil the commitment. I have been making it clear to the House for some time that we have a great deal of business to complete before we can rise for the summer recess. As it is, I can hold out no prospect of the House rising as early as I have sometimes seen suggested in the press.
As for the arguments that the timetable motion will prevent adequate time for debate on the Bill, the fact is that the motion provides for broadly the equivalent of two days to consider the Bill. I believe that that achieves the right balance between speed to meet our deadline and the time which would be required, as suggested in the discussions that we have had through the usual channels, to cover the Bill's provisions in sufficient detail. The timetable motion thus provides a reasonable amount of time overall for the various stages of the Bill's consideration.
It may help hon. Members if I briefly explain the motion's main provisions. Paragraph 1 provides for Second Reading to end at 10 pm. Io line with the procedure motion agreed by the House last Thursday, the money resolution that is necessary for the Bill may then be considered. Under normal Standing Orders, that is exempted business for a maximum of 45 minutes, but time not spent on the money resolution will present additional time for consideration in Committee.
Paragraph 2(3) provides for consideration in Committee to conclude at 3 am, so we have provided for a reasonable amount of time to debate the amendments that have been tabled. We have been told already—the point has already been made by more than one hon. Member—that the Bill has broad all-party support, and it has been made clear that most hon. Members are keen to


expedite discussion. With the timetable motion, we have provided a framework within which that discussion can take place.
The Opposition made it clear that they expected a debate on dog registration, and we have specifically provided for it. Other hon. Members have said that they want the issue debated, and that is a further reason why we have made separate provision for it in the terms of the timetable motion. Paragraphs 2(1) and (2) make separate provision for new clauses on dog registration.
I must make it clear, however, that the Government's view of dog registration has not changed. The Bill is designed to control and, with the passage of time, eliminate from our society fighting dogs, which represent an unacceptable menace to innocent people. For this purpose, and for the additional controls on dogs of other types which show themselves to be a serious danger to the public, dog registration is irrelevant. The Bill is about eliminating fighting dogs from our society, not about registering them.

Dame Elaine Kellet-Bowman: Admittedly, the Bill is about dangerous dogs. We all accept that they are dangerous to human beings, and we want to eliminate them. We want also, however, to have some control over animals that are a menace to livestock, and a dog registration scheme would help farmers in dealing with the problem of sheep worrying.

Mr. MacGregor: I do not believe that to be true. What matters are controls on fighting dogs, dangerous dogs and individual dogs, and that is what the Bill is about. There are many instances in which dogs of the sort to which my hon. Friend refers would not be registered. I do not see the relevance of registration. I am saying, however, that the timetable motion allows reasonable time for yet another discussion of the issue.
We have debated dog registration several times during this Parliament. It was debated by both Houses when they considered the Local Government Act 1988. Last year, in the context of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, it was debated twice in this place and twice in another place. I do not think that there are any grounds for complaint that insufficient time has been given to the issue in the House, and we are providing for it specifically again today.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Leader of the House accept that the complaint is not about a lack of debate in the past, but that this Parliament passed an amendment to section 37 of the Local Government Act 1988 empowering the Government to act on producing a dog registration scheme? The powers have been consistently ignored from the moment that the Minister responsible said that, even if Parliament accepted the amendment, he would be ignoring those powers. That is outrageous. Hence our concern for a dog registration scheme.

Mr. MacGregor: There is a distinction on many issues between giving powers and deciding that the moment has come to operate or use them. We have made consistently clear all the way through our position on dog registration.
Paragraph 3 of the timetable motion brings Report stage, if amendments are passed which need to be

reported, and Third Reading to a conclusion by 4 am. I do not think it is necessary for me to consider all the remaining provisions in the timetable motion.

Miss Kate Hoey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, but for the last time.

Miss Hoey: Does not the Leader of the House agree that many members of the public wish to see the Bill approved as soon as possible, but, given our long holidays, they do not accept that we have to debate such an important issue at 4 o'clock in the morning? Is not that nonsense?

Mr. MacGregor: I hope that the hon. Lady is not suggesting that the long recess is a holiday for all hon. Members; clearly, it is not. Every time a suggestion of that kind is made, someone picks it up. I shall respond by pointing out that the vast majority, if not all, hon. Members have pretty short holidays and work on other matters during the recess.
When deciding the date of the recess and considering how quickly we can reach it—I have already warned that it is a considerable time away, and that earlier suggestions in the press were not correct—I have to take into account the pressures, not least from the hon. Lady's hon. Friends, to rise in time to enable hon. Members to go on holiday with their families. If the hon. Lady wishes to check that, she has only to consider the representations that are made to me if and when the House sits into August.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall give way for the last time.

Mr. Dickens: That is generous of my right hon. Friend, especially because he said that he would not give way again.
As surely as night follows day, the timetable motion will be secured. Would we not do ourselves, you, Mr. Speaker, and the ladies and gentlemen of the press a favour if we accepted the opening speech, stayed in our places and voted on the timetable motion? We would save about three hours of our own time if we did that. Would it not be much more sensible for all hon. Members to resist the temptation to make a speech on the timetable motion?

Mr. MacGregor: In response to my hon. Friend's remarks on my generosity in giving way, I was about to say, "How could I resist?" I notice that he has not resisted the temptation or followed his own advice of not speaking on the timetable motion.
I am anxious to reach my conclusion. We want to get on to the substance of the Bill, so I shall not deal with paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 which are fairly technical and straightforward.
Paragraph 8 is the usual provision for disposing of outstanding questions when a knife falls; when that time is reached, the question will be put forthwith on proceedings then under discussion, together with other questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on which the knife has fallen. Again, as is usual with timetable motions, paragraph 8(3) provides that the putting of such questions shall not be interrupted.
Paragraph 10 is the standard provision that allows the House, should hon. Members wish, to move faster than


the timetable motion otherwise provides. I have noted that a number of hon. Members have suggested that they believe that the Bill will go through speedily. In fact, that may occur. I believe that the timetable motion provides a reasonable amount of time.
I have described the principal provisions of the timetable motion. I believe that the motion is necessary for a well-ordered debate on this extremely important Bill, and I commend it to the House.

Dr. John Cunningham: The guillotine motion is a perfect example of how, when Governments are falling apart, they do stupid things. Rarely has a Leader of the House had to struggle, as the right hon. Gentleman did, to convince even his own supporters of the necessity for a timetable motion for this legislation. Rarely has so thin a case taken so long to expound. Surely the lesson of the past 13 years is that rushing legislation through the House is not a good way to prepare laws that affect so many people. If the right hon. Gentleman had taken any notice of the hon. Member for AldridgeBrownhills (Mr. Shepherd), he would have thought long and hard about the Football Spectators Act 1989 and what happened to that, and about the poll tax and other legislation that the Government steamrollered through the House.
It is unprecedented for a Government to timetable a Bill that has the support in principle of the Opposition. We want the Bill to reach the statute book, not least because we have consistently argued for a series of measures to tackle the problems of stray and dangerous dogs. Even allowing for the fact that the Government decided, on their own account, to guillotine these discussions, it would have been more helpful had the right hon. Gentleman had some discussions about the nature of the timetable motion before it appeared on the Order Paper. The Government are more concerned about disguising their embarrassment and hiding away, in the middle of the night, the opposition of their Back Benchers to what they are—or, more accurately, are not—doing in this legislation, than they are about ensuring careful and considered discussion of the Bill.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Spark brook (Mr. Hattersley) said, the Government have an abysmal record on dealing with dangerous dogs. As he also rightly said, the provisions in this legislation could have been on the statute book more than a year ago if the Government had really wanted that. I share the view of some Conservative Members that the Government are acting now, as they have on other occasions, out of expediency and in response to some of the criticisms of the tabloid press, and that they are failing comprehensively to deal with the problems.
People have been attacked, savaged and bitten by many different breeds of dogs for a very long time. The problem of fighting dogs, and pit bulls in particular, is just the latest manifestation of what has long been a widespread problem. The Bill is inadequate to deal with the whole of the problem because of the narrow way in which it has been drafted.

Mr. Tony Marlow: It appears that the hon. Gentleman has not read the Bill. Had he done so, he would realise that, under clause 3, it will be an offence if a dog is dangerously out of control in a public

place. The problem to which he averted—that is, dangerous dogs of any sort—will come under the provisions of that clause.

Dr. Cunningham: At first glance, the hon. Gentleman may be right. However, the Bill fails to say how dogs in public places are to be controlled, how a dangerous dog is to be defined and whose word is to be taken on what is a dangerous dog. Superficially, the hon. Gentleman may have a point, but further consideration of the proposals shows that the legislation is hopelessly inadequate.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Criticism comes not only from the tabloid press. People up and down the country are seriously worried about this matter. No matter what mistakes we have made—I include the Government in that —something should be done today. If that means discussing the matter until 4 am, we should do so, because people are terrified in their communities and in their homes.

Dr. Cunningham: No one dissents from my hon. Friend's view that something should be done. Along with my hon. Friends, I have argued for a long time that something should be done. The responsibility for the delay rests not with the Opposition but with the Government. If my hon. Friend is angry about the delay, he should direct his anger at the Government.
As my hon. Friend must know, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook and the shadow Cabinet have agreed to an accelerated procedure for the consideration of the Bill, taking its Second Reading one weekend after publication, because we know that there is a need not only to act, but to act more effectively and comprehensively than we will be able to do under the proposals in the Bill. Therefore, it is nonsense to have guillotined debate.
The Leader of the House has said that, effectively, we have two days in which to debate the Bill. Why should we not have had two normal days in which to debate it? Why push the discussions into the middle of the night and the early hours of the morning? There is no need for that, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.
The Cabinet is terrified that, as in the past, many Government supporters will vote for a dog registration scheme. That is what the guillotine motion is all about. The Government know—as do people outside the House —that, if there were to be a free vote, the House would vote overwhelmingly to introduce a dog registration scheme. That is the reality, as the record shows.
I say to the Leader of the House, even at this late stage, that if he wants to organise a free vote on the Government Benches on this matter, even if it is in the early hours of the morning, we shall respond. That would be an honest decision by Parliament about what should be done. We shall not get an honest decision from many hon. Members who vote tonight, because they will be voting under the duress of a three-line Whip, again enforced by the Government Whips. We want to make that clear to the public, and I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of people understand the procedure very well.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that most people understand very well that the Government's opposition to a dog registration scheme means that they are against a scheme that might have helped the young woman in Bradford who was left with a pit bull terrier, and


given her proper guidance about the control of such a dog? A dog registration scheme may enable such accidents to be avoided, and might have saved Rucksana Khan.

Dr. Cunningham: I believe that a dog registration scheme will not, of itself, solve all the problems, but it will contribute to their solution. That is the important point. As the owner of a very large but good-natured dog, I know how easily people are frightened by dogs. That is not surprising, considering the lack of control of dogs in public areas such as parks and open spaces. No one has the responsibility for supervision or control. The Government have provided such legislation for Northern Ireland, but, despite the Bill being pushed through today, until we have a registration scheme here, our problems will remain.
The Leader of the House referred to the voting record. He seemed to say with some pride that the introduction of a dog registration scheme had been discussed and rejected. That is so, but on 14 June 1989 it was defeated by only 13 votes because of a Government Whip. On Report stage of the Environmental Protection Bill on 13 March 1990, the scheme was defeated by only 12 votes, and on Commons consideration of Lords amendments on 29 October 1990 it was defeated by three votes when the Government brought Ministers back from the four corners of the globe to vote against it. If the right hon. Gentleman questions whether in reality the House wants a dog registration scheme, let him allow the free vote that many Conservative Members would like, and it would certainly go through with a significant majority.

Mr. Marlow: The Government have a responsibility, as the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, for dealing with problems relating to dogs—and to dangerous dogs in particular. The Government make proposals for that, just as they make proposals in other areas. This is Government legislation. Why does the hon. Gentleman feel that there should be a free vote on this particular Government legislation?

Dr. Cunningham: I well recall the hon. Gentleman urging his friends into the Lobby over many years to support Government legislation that, subsequently, many of them dearly wished that they had never set eyes on. On the poll tax legislation, the hon. Gentleman was one of those who subsequently repented, so I do not accept his argument.
There may not be a consensus on the Government Benches in favour of the dog registration scheme. I hazard a guess that there may be a greater consensus on the desire to muzzle the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). We are concerned that the House should be allowed openly and candidly to reach a decision after proper debate. That is why I believe that there should be a free vote.

Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I take a rather jaundiced view of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) standing at the Dispatch Box and suggesting that somehow he can organise an agreement across the Chamber. We know that the Opposition cannot deliver on such agreements. How often have they agreed when debates should finish, and how often have those agreements not been honoured? As

a Scottish Member, I know how often the Opposition have failed to deliver. That is why we do not trust the hon. Gentleman or his Whips to deliver.

Dr. Cunningham: That was an incredible intervention. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand about delivering on a free vote, he does not understand very much. We are content that all my right hon. and hon. Friends should have a free vote on the Bill. It is not a question of delivering. It is a question of knowing what the House would really like to do, if it was not prevented by the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench.
Limited and weak though the Bill is in some respects, and belated though it is, we want to see action taken—which is why we co-operated in bringing the Bill before the House and why, despite our serious reservations, we will not oppose the timetable motion.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: On an occasion such as this, there is bound to be a great deal of indignation—but I venture to suggest that much of it is false, because both main parties have pushed through guillotine motions on many previous occasions.
The Bill is important. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on acknowledging the problem, acting with speed, listening carefully to all interested parties, and bringing before the House quickly legislation that ought to command the support of most or all right hon. and hon. Members. I believe that the British public would also want to thank him.
I support the Bill and the guillotine motion. It is important to pass this legislation quickly. All right hon. and hon. Members will have been shocked and outraged by the reports we have read in recent weeks of attacks by dangerous dogs on children. My own constituency, in Croydon, is a typical built-up south London area. There is hardly a garden bigger than a tenth of an acre, and there are very few green spaces, yet far too many dangerous dogs are kept there.
There is no room in an urban area for rottweilers, pit bull terriers or any other such dogs. The owners deserve criticism; it is no kindness to the dogs to keep them in such a place. The pit bull terrier is an absolute menace, and the same goes for the rottweiler. Many of us—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should relate his remarks to the timetable motion. What I have heard of his speech would be more appropriate to a Second Reading debate.

Mr. Malins: Many of us have had correspondence from constituents recounting problems faced as a result of vicious attacks and urging us in Parliament to act with proper haste, Mr. Speaker.
Only this week, the local paper in Croydon carried an article setting out details of an especially vicious attack, and said that the Government should act with speed. There is undoubtedly public concern, and that means that we should legislate quickly.
Opposition Members ought to support the guillotine motion—[HoN. MEMBERS: "We do."] If Opposition Members supported the guillotine motion, there would be no vote, and the matter would be dealt with quickly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes. So sit down."] I shall sit down in a moment.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said in 1976 how useful guillotine motions were. He felt that, on the whole, speeches in the House were far too long. He said that speeches that lasted 45 minutes should be limited, and could often be cut down to five, 10 or 15 minutes.
A guillotine motion is suitable for the Bill, because it is relatively simple and short. The time that has been made available to debate it is entirely adequate—we have the better part of 10 to 12 hours' debate on a Bill of only eight clauses, and that is enough. In my years in the House I have often listened to speeches of 20, 30, 40 or 50 minutes which could easily have been finished in three, four or five minutes. If one has something sensible to say, one can say it very quickly—[Interruption.] I shall be doing that myself, although no doubt Opposition Members will think my speech neither simple nor good.
My father was a clergyman, and my mother used to say to him, "There has never been a bad short sermon." Until I started speaking today, one could have said that there had never been a bad short speech.
The Bill is simple and fairly straightforward. A combination of the public demand for action and the ability of all Members to make their points briefly and succinctly should mean that there is ample time to finish dealing with the Bill today. That is why I support the guillotine motion.

Mr. Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I formally move, That the Question be now put?

Mr. Speaker: Not at this juncture. We have a timetable motion in front of us.

Mr. Michael Foot: Like the other Members who have spoken in the debate, I am strongly in favour of swift action to deal with dangerous dogs. As my hon. Friends have explained and will no doubt explain further during the general discussion, we have been in favour of such action a good deal longer than the Conservative party. If proper attention had been paid to some Opposition speeches on the subject, the matter might already have been dealt with.
No doubt some of those earlier discussions, too, took place on guillotine motions. Some people will have said, "We have got to get the business through," and did not care what the arguments were. That is why a better decision was not made earlier—because the House did not listen properly.
I am also in favour of a House of Commons which is careful about passing any guillotine motions.

Mr. Bill Walker: You should know.

Mr. Foot: I certainly know, and I have told hon. Members who want those simple history lessons explained to them the reasons why there have been differences of view about the nature of guillotine motions. However, I have always made it clear that it would be dangerous for the House if we agreed to them. Governments would like it and more and more of them would be introduced in the extremely improper way that this one is being introduced today.
Even those hon. Members who recall those earlier occasions when I introduced some guillotine motions, will be able to recall easily the difference between them and the motion that the Leader of the House moved today. The

Leader of the House knows very well that this measure was not included in the Conservative party manifesto. He knows very well that there has been no lengthy discussion of the issue previously. Therefore, the motion is very different from many earlier guillotine motions. All the motions that I properly put to the House and that it voted involved measures that had been extensively debated in the House and in the country, and I was asking for a decision. Even in those circumstances, I tried to urge the House to be very careful about proceeding with guillotine motions in a flippant manner. The hon. Member for Croydon. North-West (Mr. Malins) seemed to talk as though it did not much matter.
The simple question is whether we will get a good Bill to deal with this matter. One reason why some of us urge caution about guillotine motions is that a very bad measure may result. The more that discussion is abbreviated between Second Reading and the other processes of the Bill, and the less time that is made available for considering amendments which may he tabled from different parts of the House, the less likely one is to get a decent Bill in the end. Those of us who want a decent Bill to deal with the issue have every right to put that case now, and I support it.
This Government, of all Governments in our history, should be the most eager to recognise that argument. They should recognise that they have put more measures through the House under guillotine motions than any previous Government. Indeed, I think that they have tabled more guillotine motions than have all the previous Governments this century.

Mr. Dickens: The right hon. Gentleman holds the record.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman is as wrong with his arithmetic as he was in giving dancing lessons. I do not hold the record; it is held by the Government, who have introduced more guillotine motions than any Government in history. They should be a little careful, because some of the very Bills that were guillotined are the ones that are causing the greatest disturbance and trouble in the country today.
The Government pushed through the poll tax under a guillotine motion, and that is one reason why it is such a shoddy measure and they have had to withdraw it. Another example is the measure for dealing with so-called football hooligans that the hon. Member for AldridgeBrownhills (Mr. Shepherd) mentioned—they have had to withdraw that. If they had listened a little more carefully, even though the Bill was being guillotined, they would have understood what was being said in the country and they would not have had to suffer that indignity. If only they had listened more carefully when the health service legislation was also forced through by guillotine.
The right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors forced through one guillotine motion after another, and four or five years later they had to come here and say that they had to review the legislation in question and take more parliamentary time to see whether they could do it a bit better. Now the Government are attempting to do it again. by methods and means that will rebound on them. Nobody is assured that the Government have a proper way of dealing with the problem.
I was not in the House when the Prime Minister made his announcement. I was at home because I was ill, but my


dog—dogs have a stronger telepathic sense than others —protested most strongly. When I woke up and discovered what was happening. I realised that he was protesting about the measures that were being introduced.
The Prime Minister made such a fool of himself on the matter. He said that he would act the next morning because he had all the means of doing so, but a fortnight later we discover that he will not carry out the measure that he threatened because, rightly, it must be subject to proper examination and discussion in the House.
The Leader of the House advanced a feeble case. He did not deal with the central question of how the Government will ensure that the Bill has a chance to be investigated and considered by people who know something about it. The Government, who have rejected proposals to deal with dogs more persistently than any other Government, say, "We shall abbreviate discussion; there will be no chance for representations to be made between Second and Third Reading and the passage of the Bill." That is a disgraceful way to treat the House.
The Bill will have serious defects and within a few months the Government will say to the House, "We have made a botch of this," just as they made a botch of the many measures that they pushed through under the guillotine.
I hope that the Leader of the House, even now, will listen to what hon. Members say. He was told that the House would accept a general measure because it is widely believed that there should be such a measure, and the more he understood that, the greater was the obligation on him to secure the general agreement of the House. If he tried to do that, he would get a better Bill than by rushing it through under the guillotine.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, fairly, that there is a consensus in the House that action should be taken against dogs that risk lives or cause serious injury to human beings. We are united on that concept, but we must remember, too, the purposes of the House. As the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot)—the former Leader of the Opposition—and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said, the House wants good legislation. We want to be able to attest to our electorates, first, that we have considered legislation appropriately and, secondly, that we have heard the arguments taken around the track.
The guillotine is moved in the context of a previous guillotine, which was designed to limit discussion on the point at issue today—the licensing of dangerous dogs. In the past, we were assured by the Government that that was not possible because of the difficulty of distinguishing between a pure breed and a mongrel. I do not wish to pursue the Government's difficulties in drafting the legislation, but I appreciate the point that they made recently, which no doubt will be repeated today, that this is extremely difficult legislation to draft correctly.
Having said that, I am concerned that, in one sense, the arguments that were adduced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House were a bit of sophistry. He is saying

that the imperative is such that, as dogs will be on heat in the summer months, the Bill must be passed before they have their day by the end of July.

Mr. Dickens: They are at it all year.

Mr. Shepherd: My understanding is that dogs are busy at it all the year round.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House believes that the Bill must be terminated by the end of July. Such arguments were adduced on the Football Spectators Bill. We were told that, unless it was enacted by a specific time, there would be mass murder on the terraces, and my party was drummed into supporting a guillotine motion to enact the Bill. Fortunately, the wisdom of Back Benchers, quietly spoken, was such that the Government acceded that the legislation may depend on the views of a judge. That is an outrageous way of approaching legislation. It does us great damage in the country and in the House and it does little credit to my party and to the Government, whom I support.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Despite my hon. Friend's criticisms, does he feel sufficiently strongly to divide the House on the timetable motion?

Mr. Shepherd: I am a Member of Parliament. I was elected by my constituents to argue causes, to put reasoned arguments, if I could, to listen to them and to judge as best as I am able. The imposition of a guillotine is wholly unwarranted and it could lead to bad clauses that cause much difficulty to us and to the reputation of the House. I shall most certainly oppose the guillotine motion, if I can find hon. Members willing to be Tellers.
With the assistance of the Clerks Office, which is always available to hon. Members, I am able to correct some misleading information that I was given. It touches on a concern about the use of the guillotine and I shall refer to how it has been used.
Between 1945 and 1950, there were three guillotines. Between 1950 and 1960, there were six guillotines. Between 1960 and 1970, there were 13 guillotines. In that quarter of a century—when the greatest social revolution of this century, the inception of the welfare state, occurred—we had a total of 22 guillotines.
Under my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), between 1970 and 1974, there were eight guillotines, and under Lords Wilson and Callaghan, between 1974 and 1979, there were 21 guillotines. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] My hon. Friends may say "Ah", but the horrors are yet to come.
In the 1970s, there were 29 guillotines. Under my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), we rose to a crescendo of respect for the House. Between 1979 and 1983, her first Government—in order to show that we were more productive that the Labour party—imposed 30 guillotines. Between 1983 and 1987, her second Government, which some would say was her most successful Administration, showed more caution and imposed only 10 guillotines. Her last Administration, between 1987 and November 1990, with the ill judgment of "guillotine-Jones" in the Whips Office, imposed 28 guillotines. Under the right hon. Lady's Government, we had a total of 66 guillotines.
There was a change of Government in 1990, and I wish the new Administration well. I had hoped that they would have learnt the lessons from the hubris that brought about


the nemesis. I regret that they have introduced two guillotines, of which this is the second, and both seem to have a new tendency. They are now used when the House seems to be of the same opinion—a new, unhappy and unsatisfactory development.
The first guillotine was imposed on the Community Charges (General Reduction) Act 1991. I did not know many hon. Members who wanted to deny their citizens a £140 reduction in poll tax, yet a guillotine was used on the measure because urgency was considered a critical factor. The House also seems united on the central issue of curtailing dangerous dogs, and a guillotine has been introduced supposedly to ensure the good will of the House.

Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that, when an Opposition are faced with a large majority, their only weapon and tool is time? That being so, they keep the show on the road in Committee so that later clauses and amendments are not properly discussed and the Government ultimately have to apply a guillotine to get the legislation through the House. That does not apply to the legislation under discussion, because the Opposition have made it crystal clear that, although they are reluctant to do so, they will support the guillotine to further the Bill's progress. Therefore, the fewer speeches that are made the better.

Mr. Shepherd: In the end, we may need a guillotine. Unfortunately, this Government's predecessor, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley, used to introduce guillotines even before Second Reading. That leads me to a worrying point. Often, the processes of debate enable us to identify relevant issues. I gave the example of mongrels and I envisage that it will be difficult when I face a constituent with what looks like a brute, with the eyes and ears of an alsatian and a doberman pinscher, only to be told that it is a cross between a chihuahua and some other benign dog. No doubt my right hon. Friend —I was going to say Dr. Pangloss—the Secretary of State for the Home Department will be able to steer us cautiously through the difficult tests involved.
The 21st edition of "Erskine May"—in which standards have slipped—states that guillotine motions
may be regarded as the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House, and it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved"—
although the evidence of recent years is that the balance has not been carefully preserved—
between the claims of business, and the rights of debate.
We are citizens representing other citizens and all that we can do is attest that our fellow citizens bear what we are passing as legislation.
Burke's general injunction is a fair one, which we, as Conservatives, should remember. A majority does not simply mean the total number of Members divided by two plus one, but involves the processes by which we achieve that majority. It is terribly important that we enable everyone to make comments and observations on the details and difficulties of legislation. At best, we aim for consent and, at the very least, we aim for acquiescence. Too much of the legislation that has been drummed through the House has reflected to the disadvantage of the Conservative party, my hon. Friends and the Government whom I support.
Let us consider the crescendo reached in 1988 when there were 13 guillotines in the course of a year, including those used on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, the Water Act 1989 and the Official Secrets Act 1989, on which we had a three-hour guillotine motion to decide on a one-hour debate. Ministers were no longer able to explain the provisions of their own Acts. Let us consider the nadir, involving the Home Secretary's original proposition—the poll tax. If Ministers had allowed a debate, they might have realised where the sensitivities of the arguments lay and we might have obtained better legislation or even done away with the central principle. In that lamentable year, the Football Spectators Act 1989 required two guillotines and is now an ineffective piece of legislation. Did we serve our interests well?
The arguments adduced by the Leader of the House did him no credit and showed that he knew none of the history and had no sympathy with what is happening. The House should pause to reflect that, from the three guillotines necessary between 1945 and 1951—when there was a huge social revolution and great changes—the number has risen to give an incredible assault of guillotines, rising to the crescendo of 13 in 1988. Can we honestly say that the quality of legislation and our arguments in the Chamber are better now?

Mr. Michael J. Martin: The hon. Gentleman must agree that the use of this guillotine is different: if we do not do something today, we shall have to do something tomorrow or the week after. Something must be done to protect the people in our communities.

Mr. Shepherd: It is fair for the hon. Gentleman to raise the fact that the issue under discussion is very much alive. Something must be done to stop these horrific incidents happening. I accept the general contention of his argument, but legislating in haste often means repenting at leisure, and the purpose of our parliamentary processes is to safeguard the quality of the rule of law. If it is discussed in a proper parliamentary fashion, legislation is more likely to have merit, stand the test of time and better meet the needs of the electorate. If that takes a day or two longer, it is the price that we must pay.
We were assured that the Football Spectators Act had to go through quickly because, if it were not dealt with swiftly under the injunction of a guillotine, hundreds if not thousands of people would be killed in football grounds. Fortunately, that dire prophecy did not come about. The Football Spectators Act is not functioning, because a judge decided that it should not do so, but it is on the statute book. Would it not have been better if we had paced our discussions on that legislation and taken note of the recommendations in the judge's report, which have now been implemented and which contained proposals that had the support of the entire House?
I had not intended to speak for so long, but I feel fiercely about the abuse of parliamentary procedure. A guillotine motion involves the denial of free speech—that is the bottom line. We have enough difficulties in the House because, with 650 Members, it is difficult to catch Mr. Speaker's eye on matters of great import to the country. Perhaps there are too many of us. Today, we are imposing a guillotine motion on legislation on which the House has the ability to reflect.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: What a good speech. The House will have listened with great respect to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and recognised in the hon. Gentleman someone who is prepared to defend the liberties of the House and of our people, not only by words but by actions. He is right to be prepared to vote against the motion tonight, and he will certainly have the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Lobby if he chooses to exercise that right.
It is not good enough simply to say, as did the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), that the matter has been handled badly and incompetently. He was right —it has been handled with the incompetence which is becoming a characteristic of the declining years of the Conservative Administration. But if the Government are so incompetent, cannot we as a House do something to restore order into the consideration of our legislation? Cannot we exercise the power of discussion with Ministers about how Bills should be timetabled to enable them to pass through the House in accordance not only with Ministers' perception of what is needed but in accordance with our perception of what is necessary to hold a proper debate?
At issue is not only our amour propre as Members of Parliament, but the ability of the people we represent to make their views known. We are not discussing merely the broad principle of acting speedily to determine how to deal with attacks by so-called dangerous breeds, but how the language of the law will improve the situation.
The difficulty with the Minister's approach is that he takes his gesturing at the Dispatch Box for sufficiency of argument. The reality is that the courts will have to consider the language of the eight clauses. Some 21 amendments or new clauses are to be considered tonight, and some are of great importance. Some of them may make or mar the effectiveness of the Bill.

Mr. Budgen: The hon. Gentleman referred to the courts. Does he agree that, in recent years, the doctrine of judicial review has been extended, and that, to a large extent, that is because the courts recognise that Parliament does not carry out sufficiently its duty of properly considering the detail of legislation? As a result of procedures such as the motion today, the courts are taking from Parliament some of the powers that are really parliamentary.

Mr. Maclennan: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I welcome the extension of judicial review, because I recognise the defects of the legislative process. Constitutional arrangements for the scrutiny of Bills, even when there is broad bipartisan support for the measure, as there is in this case, are wholly inadequate and produce a statute book that is a disgrace. That statute book leads to uncertainty in the law and frequently has to be amended by further legislation in areas that have been precisely, although not adequately, considered by Parliament a short time before, as is the case with the Bill.
During the passage of the Environmental Protection Bill and in 1988, there were opportunities to put right the matters that we seek to put right today. The Home Secretary and the Leader of the House sloughed off such considerations. The urgency arises from an earlier dereliction of Government duty and from inadequate

attention to the detail of what was proposed by sensible people outside the House who have direct experience of dealing with the problems of dangerous dogs and other dogs. If the voices of, for example, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals had been listened to —never mind the voices of the political parties, or the many dissenting voices in the Conservative party—we should have had substantially better legislation.
The Government have been in office for too long. The right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), when Prime Minister, said that she thought that it was appropriate to dispense with argument within Cabinet. Her view was, "Why waste time listening to different points of view?" She told her colleagues that she wanted action. She said that she wanted only one or two like-minded people around her with whom to decide what would happen. She believed that matters would sometimes be decided in Cabinet Committee and sometimes in corners. That view has now been translated from No. 10 Downing street to the House of Commons. We are being asked to behave like a rubber stamp.
The motion has not been tabled in the interests of speed. We should have accommodated the necessary speed if we had been asked and if there had been any discussion. That was not the approach. There were no questions about how to accommodate the necessity for speed. The precise amount of time through the middle of the night which will be devoted to the whole of the Bill has been slapped down on the Order Paper.
The simplicity of the subject may be deceptive. I do not believe that, because the Bill has only eight clauses, it is an easy Bill. It contains matters of considerable contention. What is the real reason for having the central debate about the effectiveness of dog control, which will turn on the question of registration, in the middle of the night? I venture to predict that the Press Gallery will be almost empty when that debate takes place. Registration will not be reported in the first or even the later editions of the press tomorrow. If some Conservative Members decide to speak out against some of the provisions, the Government's discomfort will be covered up to an extent. That is not what Parliament is about. Dissenting voices should be free not only to speak but to be heard. They should not be wrapped up in a debate in the middle of the night when most sensible people are in their beds.
If the public have a view about the way in which we handle matters, they think nothing of debates in the middle of the night. They think that we are pretty close to insane to discuss serious matters in the middle of the night when there are two weeks of time ahead of us. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) was right. She has her ear to the ground. I have never met a constituent who was prepared to defend the idiocy of late-night debates. The fact that the Government force through guillotine motions is not a sign of strength; it is a sign of weakness. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends object to Parliament being treated in that way. Although we agree with the substance of the Bill, we wholly disagree with the Government's handling of it, and we will vote accordingly.

Mr. William Hague: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) both spoke against the timetable motion.


I take the opportunity to express my support for it. I shall do so briefly in view of the obvious cross-party support on the matter.
I welcome the Bill and I believe that it was right to introduce a guillotine motion to ensure that it becomes law as quickly as possible. Most of my constituents want the Bill to become law as quickly as possible. In the past two years, the House has discussed the regulation of dog ownership on many occasions. The fear caused by dangerous dogs has been an issue on which many of our constituents have expressed great anxiety. In my experience, it has caused more letters to flow into our postbags than any other matter, with the possible exception of what should be done about the welfare of pigs.
The public anxieties have become acute following recent attacks, with which we are all familiar and which have been highly publicised by the press. News of the planned importation of huge fighting dogs from Japan has also worried the public, and not surprisingly. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) said earlier, we should not underestimate how frightened some people are by the dogs living in their street. The Government are right to do something about that, and it is right that it should be done before the House rises for the summer recess.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Question Time on 21 May:
it is clear that such dogs have no place in our homes.
The Leader of the Opposition replied:
I strongly support what the Prime Minister just said about fighting dogs."— [Official Report, 21 May 1991: Vol. 191, c. 776.]
With that unusual degree of political consensus, it should be possible to pass a relatively simple and well-balanced measure with the considerable speed that the public have every right to expect.
For a number of reasons, I believe that it is entirely appropriate to introduce a timetable motion. The first and most important reason is that the provisions governing the ownership of fighting dogs need to be introduced as soon as possible so that further attacks, such as the attack on Rucksana Khan in Bradford, are avoided. The sooner the Bill is passed, the sooner the 30 November deadline is clear and the sooner the offence of dogs being dangerously out of control applies, the sooner it will be necessary under the law to muzzle and leash dangerous fighting dogs. What would our constituents think if we were to dilly-dally and shilly-shally, taking days or weeks to debate a short Bill and spending much of our time debating matters such as the registration of all dogs, which is peripheral to the problem in any case? What would they think if, during that time, there were further attacks which might have been prevented? We have a duty to put the measure on the statute book as soon as possible.

Mr. Budgen: Surely our constituents would understand that, if the Bill does not come into effect until 30November, there is plenty of time to have a decent interval between Second Reading and Committee stage? That would allow those who feel that they may be treated unjustly to make representations about Second Reading. It is all very well to say that our constituents want this legislation to be bashed through, but they understand that passing legislation is not a matter of knocking things

through a sausage machine. Rather, it involves trying to evoke some consent among those who may be affected by legislation.

Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) had better have another look at the Bill. He will then discover that some clauses will come into effect immediately the Bill is enacted. My colleagues on the Front Bench will correct me if I am wrong about that. The provisions relating to muzzling and leashing will come into force on enactment. Throughout the summer it is important that the public are reassured that such a provision exists and that dangerous dogs on our streets are muzzled and leashed. Such provisions should be introduced straight away.
Another reason why we should approve the timetable motion is that there are only six or seven weeks left before the summer recess. We should not let the Bill rest in limbo over the summer recess and enact it in October or November. There is sufficient cross-party agreement that urgent action should be taken to justify a timetable that will lead to Royal Assent before the summer.
Finally, we should approve the timetable motion because the Bill is relatively straightforward. The more complex far-reaching matters that some of my hon. Friends and others would like to add to the Bill have already been debated exhaustively during this Parliament. The Bill will, in effect, eventually make pit bull terriers extinct in Britain, but it will do so in a relatively humane and considered way. There is overwhelming support in the House for that proposition. In the meantime, those dogs must be muzzled and leashed in public places. There is overwhelming support for that proposition, too.
The Bill also creates a new offence of permitting a dog of any breed
to be dangerously out of control in a public place".
There is overwhelming support for that proposal. The Bill also gives my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the power to extend the provisions of the legislation to other breeds of dog not specifically mentioned in it. There must be overwhelming support for that provision as well. Almost every feature of the Bill commands widespread support.
The difference between hon. Members rests on whether a registration scheme for all dogs should be added to the Bill. I an not in favour of an all-embracing registration scheme. We are considering the problem of dangerous dogs. I do not believe that it will help us deal with dangerous dogs to insist on the registration of every spaniel, Scottie or chihuahua in the land. Whatever we think about the merits of such an idea, the continuing debate about is should not be allowed to obstruct and delay the passage of this Bill. It is therefore right to allocate a fixed time for the debate about registration.
No one can claim that the House is not fully familiar with every debating point, representation, argument and nuance for and against a registration scheme. To my recollection, we have voted on the idea three times in the past two years and this timetable motion will allow another vote. We do not need to spend many hours rehearsing arguments with which every hon. Member must be extremely familiar. Moreover, in all probability there will be a further vote on a registration scheme if the other place inserts a requirement for such a scheme, so no one


can say that the proposed rapid passage of the Bill prevents the House from passing judgment on that related but different matter.
The Bill provides for a range of measures which, I believe—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman must refer to the allocation of time motion. I am afraid that he is making a Second Reading speech.

Mr. Hague: I have advanced arguments in favour of the timetable motion, which makes it possible to place a highly desirable measure on the statute book before the summer recess. The issues that other people would like to debate more extensively have already been exhaustively debated both within and outside the House. We know that we need to act, and we should do so tonight.

Mr. Tony Banks: I was surprised that the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who clearly favours the Bill and the timetable motion, should tell us at great length why we should approve the motion. That might have happened more quickly had he not bothered to speak.
I am opposed to the timetable motion and the procedure by which the Bill will be passed in the short space of time that the Government are proposing. The Bill is knee-jerk legislation. If a pit bull terrier or a rottweiler was hanging on to one's ankle, that might be a very good reason to jerk one's knee.
I imagine that there is support inside the House and in the country at large for the central measure in the Bill. However, this is not a national emergency, nor is it an issue about which we need to take such a quick decision. We need decisive action, but the Opposition have been urging the Government to take action for well over 12 months. Only after the popular newspapers carried pictures of the Home Secretary on their front pages and demanded that he stop dithering, and only because the Prime Minister wants to act decisively after being accused of dithering all the time, do we see legislation rushed through the House.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made a principled speech and that makes him one of the most endangered species on the Conservative Benches. As he said, as a result of this timetable motion we are likely to get bad legislation. There is agreement across the House about the need to deal with fighting dogs and there is no question of the Opposition trying to trip up the Government or to talk the measure out or delay it. That is all the more reason why we should approach the issue in a measured way.
The best way to achieve that would have been to have a normal Second Reading today and then a Standing Committee stage and then to return to the House. There could have been an agreement between the two sides through the official channels about an unofficial timetable. That would have been all right because we are not trying to stop the legislation. However, the timetable motion is an insult to the House and we will end up with bad legislation. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will not be able

to consider all the nuances proposed in the Bill. No doubt, if more consideration was given to that, hon. Members would be more informed.

Mr. Budgen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the really important gap of time is that between Second Reading and the Committee stage? It is not just hon. Members who want to consider the Bill's principle. The Government have changed their mind on several occasions and it is important that the various interested parties, some of which are in the minority, should be able to consider the Bill and make representations to their Members of Parliament. Hon. Members do not encompass the whole wisdom of the nation; nor do the Government. If we are to be a proper representative body, we must hear the representations of the people and consider them between Second Reading and Committee. It is wholly unnecessary to introduce legislation in this way. It makes a mockery of the House and it gives the impression that the Government are acting in an ill-considered way.

Mr. Banks: On this occasion, I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. He repeated some of the points that I have made. I said that we should have a Second Reading debate today and then have a Committee stage which would not last very long, but which would at least enable hon. Members to consider the Bill in detail.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said that the Government have already changed their position on several occasions. If I remember correctly, the first proposal to emerge from the Home Secretary was the destruction of all pit bull terriers. That was met by a great cry of outrage from hon. Members on both sides of the House and from responsible pit bull terrier owners. The owners wanted to know why their dogs should be destroyed. I believe that there is no such thing as an irresponsible dog, only an irresponsible owner. If we had rushed legislation through at that stage, who knows what would have been enshrined in it? I have received a great wodge of letters about this from my constituents and they are still pouring in. I should like to be able to consider those letters and raise issues in Committee—if I was lucky enough to be a member of a Committee. Most owners of those dogs would not consider the way in which we are approaching the matter as a responsible way for the House to conduct its business.
The timetable motion is inappropriate, unnecessary and undemocratic, as many such motions are. I am disappointed that the Opposition Front Bench will not force a vote on the timetable motion. However, as I understand from my very good friend on the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), if there is to be a free vote, I shall be in the Division Lobby opposing the timetable motion.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I support the timetable motion. I have some sympathy with the argument of my hon. Friend for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I too, agree that excessive use of the timetable procedure cannot ultimately be conducive to good parliamentary Government and can also be counterproductive.
Equally, I understand the argument of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who spoke against excessive use of the guillotine procedure. His


words would have had slightly more credibility had he not been such an enthusiastic user of the procedure when he was in Government.
I agree with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) that it is curious, to say the least, that we are to debate such matters at three or four o'clock in the morning. However, that comment relates less to the use of the timetable procedure and more to the need for reform of parliamentary procedures which seem to be mooted in theory but rarely proposed by the Leader of the House or his shadow counterpart.
We have an obligation to move forward quickly with the Bill. There is no doubt that we have bipartisan support for the principles in the Bill and support within the country not only for producing it but for getting on with it very quickly.
As the father of a son aged four and as the previous owner of bull mastiffs, mastiffs and Irish wolfhounds, I understand that there is a necessity for legislation that not only deals with fighting dogs but allows muzzling powers so that magistrates can deal with large or potentially threatening dogs that may cause problems for parents with young children. It is significant that the Metropolitan police say that, out of 468 dog attacks on human beings in 1990, no fewer than 111 were committed by American pit bull terriers. Any responsible Government would need to introduce such legislation.

Mr. Winnick: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the issue is not that such dogs are dangerous and that measures must be taken to deal with them? That is not likely to divide the House of Commons. The issue is the manner in which we debate and decide on legislation. If, for example, the original proposals had been put before us in a Bill to slaughter dogs—that may be right or wrong; we have our own views—no doubt the hon. Gentleman would make the same speech as he is making now. There has been time for some reflection. All that we are saying is that, between Second Reading and Committee, there should be some time for the House of Commons perhaps even to strengthen the measure along the lines that the hon. Gentleman mentions. In some respects, the measure is not as strong as some of us would like. All that we are asking is that the House of Commons give due consideration to the measure.

Mr. Coombs: Given the consensus behind the legislation, any responsible Government should ensure not only that the measure proceeds as quickly as possible to protect innocent people but that it proceeds at all. The shadow Leader of the House said, "Yes, we will deliver on a guillotine motion." Several hon. Members than said that they would not support it. If we did not have a guillotine motion, there is a strong possibility that the measure would be filibustered out of existence, and therefore an important piece of legislation would not reach the statute book.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend please answer one point? One of the most dangerous occasions is when the House of Commons and its Front Benches appear to agree. One of our duties as Members of Parliament from time to time is to put forward unpopular views and to ensure that the House considers them. It is very authoritarian and dangerously populist to say that, simply because the consensus in the House is in favour of something, the proper process of consideration and debate

should be truncated. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will have a very distinguished ministerial future. However, is there not still, however despicable, some role for Back-Bench Members of Parliament from time to time to put forward minority views?

Mr. Coombs: I would agree with my hon. Friend if the timetable motion did not genuinely give enough time for debating what is in the Bill. The trouble is that, without a timetable motion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said, we would spend most of our time debating what is not in the Bill, and that is a dog registration scheme. For that reason, there is adequate time for developing the arguments that we need to develop and to propose an important piece of legislation that will save lives and prevent children from being disfigured, because that is what it is all about.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I hear the hon. Gentleman's arguments for the timetable motion. If he casts his mind back to the previous Session, he may remember the Broadcasting Act 1990 and its various stages. There were 165 clauses, I think, and heaven knows how many amendments. Although we fiercely opposed what the Government are doing, there was no guillotine.

Mr. Coombs: There was no guillotine because hon. Members on both sides were committed to acting in a way that addressed the issues in the Bill rather than issues that were not in it. As a result, there was a consensus that the Bill should be on the statute book within a certain time. In this case, if we did not have the guillotine, we would find that hon. Members in favour of dog registration—let us face it, they already have three out of five hours to consider that subject in Committee, at whatever hour of day or night it may be—would frustrate the consensus of Parliament and of the vast majority of people to introduce this legislation. We saw a hint of that this afternoon. In view of their avowed aim to frustrate the legislation, the guillotine motion is not only necessary but desirable, and I support it.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I make it abundantly clear that those of us who are critical of the guillotine motion support the Bill. We want to extend it and make it more effective. We do not want to make it less effective; we want to improve it. We are all subject to the pressures of our constituents, and quite rightly so. The accident involving Rucksana Khan occurred within a mile and a half of where I live in Bradford. It is not a question of wanting to oppose the Bill, talk it out or generally sabotage it. In any case, if the Government felt that there was the slightest hint of that, they have plenty of Members such as the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) to come to the House for a closure motion, to maintain the required 100 hon. Members, and get the measure through. There is no question about that.
Reference has been made to 1976 and my saying that guillotines were desirable to cut out debate. We were in an entirely different situation. We had a minority Labour Government and we were being harried by an Opposition who had recovered from the shock of an election defeat and were proving to be extremely effective. If anybody asks me about the pattern of behaviour that I follow in this Parliament to try to stop Conservative Government legislation, I will tell them that I follow the pattern of


behaviour of the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) when he was in opposition and supported by the late Ian Gow. At that time, they were harrying us very successfully.
However, I have changed my mind to a considerable degree about guillotines. Debate helps to improve legislation. As I have been in the House for 14 years, I do not believe that it is a criminal offence to say that that process can improve legislation.

Mr. Budgen: I support the hon. Gentleman's point. At least it can be said about those measures that were got through under the guillotine by the then Labour Government that, in broad outline, they had been considered by the electorate at the preceding general election. The great criticism of this measure is that it has been thought up quickly, that the central argument has been changed at least twice—some say, three times—and that there has been little public debate about the principle of the Bill on Second Reading. I am proud to have voted against the guillotines introduced by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), but this Bill is the weakest possible case for a guillotine.

Mr. Cryer: I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's view, but I was clarifying my position. I am flattered that people look up the speeches that I made in 1976, so I want to make my position clear—that I do not apply double standards, something that I hope all hon. Members are concerned about. Moreover, this Government have an overall majority of 100 and a majority of 150 over the Labour party.
The guillotine allows three hours for Second Reading. We might be able to add on a little bit, if the guillotine debate does not take up the full three hours. There is pressure on us to do that so that we can add on few extra minutes to the miserly three hours that have been allowed for Second Reading. The two new clauses that deal with a dog registration scheme will not be debated at any hour, as the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) said. They will be debated between 10 pm and 1 am. Three hours, under the guillotine, have been allowed for a very important principle.
The Leader of the House says that there has been plenty of time for debating a dog registration scheme. Time was indeed devoted to debating the subject. The House decided that there should be a dog registration scheme. However, due to the Government's reservations in 1988, they inserted a clause in the Local Government Bill that provided that a dog registration scheme may—not shall —be introduced. That clause has not been implemented.
The new clause 1 and new clause 5 debates, between 10 pm and I am, will give me the opportunity to say that, if Ministers had implemented the decision of this House in 1988, in all probability Rucksana Khan would not have been attacked by an American pit bull terrier in that grossly savage and intensely disfiguring way. However, they did not do so. I do not intend to develop that theme, because we are debating whether there should be a guillotine. The argument has many ramifications, but we have been given insufficient time to follow them up. New clause 1 and new clause 5 are to be considered in Committee, when they ought to be dealt with in great detail.
A crucial element is the classification of dogs. Between I am and 3 am—two hours—the House is to consider a total of nine groups of amendments, chosen by Mr. Speaker. That does not work out at very many minutes each. They include amendments to cover breeds such as rottweilers. The majority of serious dog attacks mean that people have to be taken to hospital with massive injuries. During the last three months, one person has lost his life as a result of such an attack. He was attacked, however, not by a pit bull terrier but by an alsatian. We ought to be given sufficient time in which to consider how the Secretary of State's powers can be extended to include all types of dogs that potentially can cause harm to human beings. The first group of amendments out of the nine that are to be debated during that period of two hours is devoted to that subject. We know how long that subject could take up.

Mr. Hind: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's point very carefully. In the light of what he has said, does he not think that it is time to end this debate now and deal with the substantive issues before the House?

Mr. Cryer: That is an example of the way in which the guillotine brings pressure to bear on the House of Commons. It is outrageous. I wish the hon. Gentleman had said that when we debated the measure that introduced the poll tax. Had he done so, the embarrassment in which his party is now shrouded would have been considerably reduced.
May I deal with a few of the other items in the nine groups of amendments that we are to consider in that two hours? I refer to the conditions in which potentially dangerous dogs are kept and also to the question of affirmative orders. I tabled that amendment because it would provide greater accountability to the House if more orders were subject to the affirmative rather than to the negative resolution procedure. I am the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It is a minority occupation and the media do not give much publicity to the work of that Committee. However, it does important work, and I should like to explain why I believe that orders should be subject to the affirmative rather than the negative resolution procedure. However, due to the guillotine, the likelihood is that we shall not have time to discuss that amendment.
The Home Secretary recognises that there will not be enough time under the guillotine, because he has not devoted time and attention in the House of Commons to discussing these orders. However, when he announced that he intended to introduce the Bill at a press conference, he devoted a considerable time to outlining the way in which the orders that the Bill gives him the power to make will operate. I regard it as a very great pity that he did not bother to consult the House when elaborating on what the orders should cover. That would have enlightened our discussions. Although the Bill is supported by the Opposition, the fact that the Government have decided to impose a guillotine, in conjunction with the Home Secretary's elaboration of these matters when speaking to the press but not to us, shows remarkable contempt for this House.
The last matter that is to be debated within those two hours is new clause 3, which deals with an application to the Criminal Inujuries Compensation Board when somebody is injured by a dog whose owner cannot be traced. That is not an unreasonable new clause. It is an


important matter for that minority of people who may find themselves in that position. The House should show reasonable care for minorities, but almost certainly we shall not reach new clause 3, due to the guillotine.
The guillotine is misplaced. It has been criticised by both sides of the House. I hope that the House will vote against it and will register the fact that the House feels deeply unhappy about the way in which the Government have abused the Opposition, who time and again have said that they were willing to help and co-operate. There should be a demonstration about the Bill so that, when the Bill turns out to be a dog's dinner and the Government have to produce amending legislation, they cannot turn around and say, "You failed to vote against the guillotine."

Mr. Budgen: Would not any decent Opposition have opposed the guillotine?

Mr. Cryer: That is what we are doing.

Mr. Budgen: I accept that. If one takes Mr. Disraeli's dictum that it is the duty of an Opposition to oppose—

Mr. Skinner: We do not need Disraeli to tell us how to oppose. He was a Tory.

Mr. Budgen: I dare say the Opposition do not. It is a rotten day for the Opposition if they cannot muster a vote against a guillotine of this sort.

Mr. Cryer: I would not entirely share that view. Members of the Opposition have different views, but the Government will find that the Opposition are working well today.

Mr. Bill Walker: I shall be brief. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) clearly demonstrated my reason for saying that one should support the Government's guillotine motion. If Ministers had tried to reach an accommodation of views so that the Bill could be passed in time to meet the requirements, which were clearly spelt out by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, there is no doubt that the Labour Whips could not have delivered. That is the experience in this Parliament. That is why I believe that it is right to pass the guillotine motion. The Opposition say that they can agree something, but it rarely happens—one need only examine Scottish business to see that.

Mr. David Winnick: I came into the Chamber feeling that, although the guillotine motion was not necessary—I intervened during the speech of the Leader of the House—I would probably go along with it. I have changed my mind. I shall vote against the motion as, I hope, will other hon. Members.
I have no doubt that action is necessary to deal with the dogs in question. On that issue, there is no dispute between the two sides of the House. Hon. Members rarely agree that legislation is necessary. Few, if any, Conservative Members would argue that legislation is not necessary to deal with these dogs—although I do not know the view of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). There is a consensus.
Perhaps I should not admit this in the House of Commons—one should never admit to any form of cowardice—but I suppose that I have spent most of my life

in fear of some dogs. I imagine that I am not in a minority of one. I have the greatest sympathy with postmen who have to deliver letters regardless of ferocious dogs. I am a dog lover, and I should not like people in my constituency to think otherwise.
Is the guillotine motion necessary or desirable? Governments, whether they have a large majority or not, introduce guillotine motions because they fear filibustering and delay, and the actions of Members who oppose controversial legislation. That is part of the House of Commons, and there is no reason to apologise for it. It is the job of hon. Members—certainly of the Opposition—to oppose controversial legislation.
There is a consensus on this necessary Bill. It is unlikely that any hon. Member will filibuster to delay it. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that no one who sees on television the injuries inflicted on a child by a dog could doubt that action is necessary. If there is any criticism of the Government, it is that action was not taken earlier.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: It took two years.

Mr. Winnick: Indeed. If action had been taken, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South said, a child might not have been injured. Bearing in mind what has happened to people, particularly children, the Bill is certainly necessary.
The Bill could be better if the House of Commons had sufficient time to debate matters, rather than rushing it through as the guillotine motion intends. Why could we not have had a two-day debate? Why have controversy over the guillotine motion when it could have been avoided if the Government had said, "Here is a two-clay debate and the House has agreed that action is necessary"? Instead, once again, we have a typical Government guillotine motion.
At the risk of repeating what others have said, I should have thought that, given other Bills which have been guillotined—particularly the poll tax Bill—and which have been shown to be totally wrong, the Government would be reluctant, to say the least, to have a guillotine on this subject, especially when there is general agreement that action is necessary.
I am one of those Members who have changed their minds. One rarely admits that in the House. We listen to a debate and make up our minds accordingly, and I have done so. Several hon. Members, not least the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), have persuaded me that it would be wrong to go ahead with the motion. For that reason, a number of us will go into the Division Lobby to express our view in the usual way in which we oppose motions with which we disagree.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I shall speak briefly because, like other hon. Members, I wish to move on to the substantive motion. I wish to make one point to correct the central thesis of the speech by the Leader of the House which was echoed by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), who is not now in his place—having read the speech put into his hand, the hon. Gentleman has left the Chamber.
I wish to make it clear that the argument for the guillotine, which is based on the need to complete


consideration of the Bill today and tomorrow morning, is wholly false. Had there not been a guillotine, I have no doubt that the Bill would have concluded all its stages today. There would have been a good chance that it would have concluded all its stages more quickly. The only difference is that we would have had sensible consideration of difficult points.
The arithmetic is obvious. Had we not spent three hours on the guillotine—

Mr. Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: Not for the moment.
Had we not spent three hours on the guillotine, as we shall, the Second Reading debate would have begun at 3.30 pm. I have no doubt that that debate could have been concluded, by arrangement, some time before 10 pm. We would then have gone on to registration. The hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who is also not in his place, does not seem to understand that point, but it is relevent to the Bill. The prepared speech which was put in his hand persuaded him to suggest that the Bill was entirely about tosas and pit bull terriers—

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) is characteristically overenthusiatic. If he will contain himself and be patient, I promise that he will have a moment before I finish.
The hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks talked as though the Bill was entirely concerned with pit bull terriers and tosas, but many of the clauses deal with dogs in general. I urge Government business managers who prepare speeches for Back Benchers to do the job more accurately.
Had we not spent three hours on the guillotine motion, we should have got on to registration well before 10 o'clock. Almost certainly, we would not have taken three hours to discuss that. We should then have gone on, in some of the small hours of the morning, to discuss amendments in Committee. The Bill would have been considered more quickly. The only difference would be that we would have come to a vote on registration not in the small hours of the morning but at a reasonable time of night when Conservative Members condescended to be here and when the newspapers reported our deliberations.
To maintain the equilibrium of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, I now give way to him.

Mr. Budgen: On reflection, does not the right hon. Gentleman feel rather ashamed of the Opposition? Is it not the duty of the Opposition to oppose and, in opposing, to uphold the minority interest and give it an opportunity to be heard? In their anxiety to pander to what they believe to be the overwhelming public view, are not the Opposition denying the rights of the minority, which should be preserved by parliamentary procedure?

Mr. Hattersley: The slogan about it being the duty of the Opposition to oppose is the most trivial view of politics that it is possible to imagine. It is the duty of the Opposition to support those things in which they believe and to oppose those things with which they disagree. As I am basically in agreement with the contents of the Bill and

I am anxious to get on to a proper discussion of it, I propose to sit down so that the Home Secretary can make an equally brief speech and we can begin to spend our time doing something worth while instead of making the House look ridiculous, as this guillotine motion has done.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I sense that the feeling of the House is to move to a decision on the motion—[Interruption.] I notice that the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) have been snapping and snarling throughout the debate. Snapping and snarling is not unparliamentary, but such behaviour comes under the description in the Bill of being
dangerously out of control in a public place".

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman will be lucky not to fall within the provisions of clause 3.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Baker: I shall continue, if I may, because I wish to reply to the debate briefly. It would be a discourtesy if I did not reply to the points that have been raised. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins), for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) for their support for the timetable motion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and I have been involved in many debates on major Bills and in their Committee stages during the past 10 or 12 years and he knows that I respect his views. He spoke on the grounds of constitutional propriety in which he has always believed. He has opposed not only this guillotine, but all guillotines and has never been afraid to express that view both in opposition and in government.
I was a little more surprised by the views of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). That was a case of a Daniel come to judgment. Those of us who have been Members of the House for some years may remember the day when five tumbrils were summoned to the foot of the guillotine by the trumpet that he blew. Now, however, he is against all guillotines. I suppose that evening brings repentance.
I should like to repeat a point made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The real problem is that we have had to act quickly on pit bull terriers, the tosa and other clause 1 dogs. The public demand such action and Members in all parts of the House accept the need for it. I am glad that the Opposition have said that they will support us in that, and I am grateful for their support. I do not need to emphasise to the House the importance of getting such legislation onto the statute book, our aim being to make the Bill law by the end of July.
In an uncharacteristically misinformed intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) expressed the belief that the Bill would come into force on 30 November. Several important measures will, however, be implemented from 31 July, such as the muzzling of pit bull terriers, and the ban on their breeding and their being given or exchanged.

Mr. Budgen: Even with the first part of the Bill coming into effect on 31 July, there would still be time for a proper gap between Second Reading and Committee stage.

Mr. Baker: On such matters, I must take the advice of the managers of Government business. Their clear advice was that, if the Bill is to proceed to the House of Lords, it must finish its passage through this House by the end of this week. I have some sympathy with the feelings of those hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Bradford, South and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who have said that we should debate several of these matters at greater length. However, it is ironic that even in this debate on the guillotine motion, in which the Opposition Front Bench have said, "We will co-operate and we will not vote against you," in the two hours in which we have debated the motion, several Opposition Members have said, "No, we shall not accept that advice." I do not criticise that attitude—it is the prerogative of hon. Members—but it is none the less a reflection of the fact that it is difficult to contain debates, especially on such difficult matters.

Mr. Cryer: rose—

Mr. Baker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way to him. The House wishes to move on to Second Reading and he and I will spend much of the rest of the evening debating these matters, in which I know that he has a particular interest.
I very much hope that we can now proceed with the Second Reading debate. It is important that we do so. There is no question of the Government wishing to avoid a vote or debate on the question of registration. Such a debate and vote is inevitable whenever the question of dogs arises. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hatterlsey) asked about that in our short discussion and I said that I would ensure that we could have such a debate and vote under any procedures that were introduced. The guillotine motion allows for that to take place first.
No hon. Member has been more eloquent than the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) who intervened twice to say that the country expects nothing less than that we proceed with this matter—he used the word "immediately"—so that the Bill can pass through this House tomorrow. I agree with him.

Question put:—

The House divides: Ayes 280, Noes 56.

Division No. 160]
[5.55 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Boswell, Tim


Aitken, Jonathan
Bottomley, Peter


Alexander, Richard
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)


Amess, David
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Amos, Alan
Bowis, John


Arbuthnot, James
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Ashby, David
Brazier, Julian


Atkins, Robert
Bright, Graham


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Baldry, Tony
Buck, Sir Antony


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Burns, Simon


Batiste, Spencer
Burt, Alistair


Bellingham, Henry
Butler, Chris


Bendall, Vivian
Butterfill, John


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Carrington, Matthew


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cash, William


Body, Sir Richard
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Chapman, Sydney





Chope, Christopher
Janman, Tim


Churchill, Mr
Jessel, Toby


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Colvin, Michael
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Key, Robert


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kilfedder, James


Cope, Rt Hon John
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Cran, James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knapman, Roger


Curry, David
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knox, David


Devlin, Tim
Latham, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lawrence, Ivan


Dicks, Terry
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dover, Den
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Dykes, Hugh
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Eggar, Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lord, Michael


Evennett, David
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Fallon, Michael
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Favell, Tony
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Maclean, David


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fishburn, John Dudley
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Forth, Eric
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus
Madel, David


Freeman, Roger
Major, Rt Hon John


French, Douglas
Malins, Humfrey


Gale, Roger
Mans, Keith


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maples, John


Gill, Christopher
Marland, Paul


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Marlow, Tony


Goodlad, Alastair
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorst, John
Mates, Michael


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Maude, Hon Francis


Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Gregory, Conal
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Miller, Sir Hal


Grist, Ian
Miscampbell, Norman


Ground, Patrick
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, Sir David


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Moate, Roger


Hague, William
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hanley, Jeremy
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Harris, David
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Haselhurst, Alan
Moss, Malcolm


Hayes, Jerry
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Mudd, David


Hayward, Robert
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nelson, Anthony


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nicholls, Patrick


Hind, Kenneth
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Holt, Richard
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Norris, Steve


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Page, Richard


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Paice, James


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Patnick, Irvine


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Portillo, Michael


Irvine, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Jack, Michael
Price, Sir David






Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Rathbone, Tim
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Redwood, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rhodes James, Robert
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Riddick, Graham
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich i


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Thorne, Neil


Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)
Thurnham, Peter


Roe, Mrs Marion
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Tracey, Richard


Rost, Peter
Tredinnick, David


Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Trippier, David


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Trotter, Neville


Sackville, Hon Tom
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sayeed, Jonathan
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Walden, George


Shelton, Sir William
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Shersby, Michael
Ward, John


Sims, Roger
Watts, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wells, Bowen


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wheeler, Sir John


Speller, Tony
Whitney, Ray


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Widdecombe, Ann


Squire, Robin
Wiggin, Jerry


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wilkinson, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wilshire, David


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stern, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Stevens, Lewis
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Yeo, Tim


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)



Stokes, Sir John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sumberg, David
Mr. David Lightbown and


Summerson, Hugo
Mr. John M. Taylor.


NOES


Alton, David
Johnston, Sir Russell


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Jones, leuan (Ynys Mon)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Kennedy, Charles


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Kirkwood, Archy


Bellotti, David
Lambie, David


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Lamond, James


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lewis, Terry


Budgen, Nicholas
Livsey, Richard


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McAllion, John


Carr, Michael
McCartney, Ian


Cartwright, John
McKelvey, William


Cohen, Harry
Maclennan, Robert


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Meale, Alan


Cox, Tom
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Butt


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Douglas, Dick
Patchett, Terry


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Ross, William (Londonderry E


Fearn, Ronald
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Sillars, Jim


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Gordon, Mildred
Wallace, James


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Wigley, Dafydd


Hardy, Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Hood, Jimmy
Winnick, David


Howells, Geraint
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)



Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Janner, Greville
Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved.
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Dangerous Dogs Bill—

Second Reading

1. The proceedings on Second Reading shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

Committee

2. (1) In Committee, proceedings on any new Clauses relating to the registration of dogs shall be taken before proceedings on the Clauses.

(2) Proceedings in Committee on new Clauses relating to the registration of dogs shall be brought to a conclusion at 1 a.m. at this day's sitting.

(3) The remaining proceedings in Committee shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion at 3 a.m.

Report and Third Reading

3. The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion at 4 a.m.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

4. On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and if he reports the Bill with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill, as amended, without any Question being put.

Order of proceedings

5. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration are taken.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings at this day's sitting shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time

7. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings at this day's sitting.

Conclusion of proceedings

8.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order at this day's sitting.

(2) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(3) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (2) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(4) If a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings which, under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

9.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

(2) If at this day's sitting the House is adjourned, or if this day's sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this


Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

10. Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which this Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by this Order; or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommital

11.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages, respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommital.
(2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Business Committee

12. Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

Orders of the Day — Dangerous Dogs Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Following considerable public concern about irresponsible dog ownership and increases in the numbers of reported attacks by dogs, the Government issued a consultation paper in June 1990 on the control of dogs. We proposed a series of measures to bring about the safer control of dogs, and powers to penalise the irresponsible owner. The response to the consultation paper showed an encouraging measure of support for such action.
During the past few weeks, a number of horrific attacks by dogs on adults and young children had led to a clear demand for swift action by the Government to end this menance. The most recent attacks have been of a different degree of seriouness compared with the great majority of dog-biting incidents. The whole country was shocked at the injuries caused to Rucksana Khan by a pit bull terrier last month and the savage attacks by these dogs on other people, including Mr. Frank Tempest.
The public rightly look to the Government for protection against these dogs. The Dangerous Dogs Bill sets out our proposals for giving the public that protection. The aim of the Bill is a simple one—to rid the country of the menace of these fighting dogs. I am glad to say that in all the discussions I had last week with the different dog interests, the groups to which I spoke agreed that these dogs should be removed from our society.
Since I announced on 22 May my intention to introduce this legislation, some have suggested that the Government were over-reacting to the problem, that eliminating the fighting dogs is not the answer and that there is no such thing as a bad dog, only a bad owner. But there is clear evidence that these dogs are a danger and a menace and are a type to be set apart from other dogs. I understand that that view is shared by those on the Opposition Front Bench. That is why we acted to ban the import of these dogs and other fighting dogs last month and that is why we have introduced the Bill as an urgent response to this problem.
As I undertook in my statement, I have had extensive consultations with many of the organisations with an interest in dogs—the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Kennel Club, the Joint Advisory Committee on Pets in Society and the Canine Defence League—as well as the veterninary organisations, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association. All support the aim of this legislation, which clause 1 sets out, of eliminating dogs bred for fighting, such as the pit bull and the tosa, from our society.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Home Secretary mentioned a list of organisations with which he has been in contact, but he did not mention those that I raised with the Leader of the House—the insurance companies. A number of people who own fighting dogs and who have had them muzzled and neutered have made inquiries as to


how they can get them insured. Many of them have come up with the answer that it will be extremely difficult to do that. Has the Home Secretary anything to tell us on that? Has he met the insurance companies, and is a list of those willing to insure such dogs available so that the public will know exactly what to do?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman made that point earlier. We have talked to various insurance interests. For example, the chief executive of the Association of British Insurers has commented on that and my officials have met the interests to discuss the possibility of insuring the dogs specifically referred to in clause 1 and for other wider matters.
The Association of Britsh Insurers has no information that policies are being refused. On the contrary, some companies are now coming forward with policies specifically geared to the new legislation.

Mr. Allen McKay: If the Secretary of State obtains a list of companies willing to insure such dogs, will he publish it? I have constituents who have had their dogs neutered and muzzled and have inquired about insurance with 12 companies, but insurance has been blatantly and blankly refused.

Mr. Baker: Of course I will do what the hon. Gentleman suggests. Insurance of dogs is a complicated matter. In many cases, the householder who is also a dog owner has the liability resulting from the dog covered by the household insurance policy. Insurance companies are now examining that in the light of the experience with pit bull terriers, but I shall do as the hon. Gentleman has asked.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: Will the Home Secretary clarify one point? This is one of those strange parliamentary questions which seeks information.
Does the Bill contain, or will the Home Secretary propose, an order which will require owners of dogs of any category to take out third-party insurance? He told us about that in his statement, but I can find no reference to it in the Bill.

Mr. Baker: I shall deal with that shortly when I consider clause 1. I shall answer the point when I come to it.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Is it not a fair point that, if an insurance company is not prepared to take the risk of insuring a particular dog, the public should not be subjected to the risks of that dog?

Mr. Baker: I shall discuss that with the insurers and the animal welfare organisations that are considering proposals that might cover particular breeds. As I shall explain in a moment, there is a necessity to insure the dogs referred to in clause 1.
Clause 1 spells out the criminal offence which will apply to these dogs and to any other fighting dogs which I may specify by order. The pit bull is today's problem. It is important that I should have the power to take action against any new fighting breeds which may emerge in the future. Clause 1(c) gives me that power. It also gives me the power, in effect, to refine the definition of any fighting dog, including the pit bull, by order. During the debate on the timetable motion it was said that no one underestimates

the difficulties of defining in law what is in fact a cross-breed dog. Many experts in this and other countries are considering the point and perhaps in time a more precise and scientific definition may emerge. In the meantime, the Bill's expression
any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier
is one that is understandable to the lawyer and the layman.
Clause 1 sets out the criminal offences which will apply to these dogs. It covers their breeding; selling or exchanging them; giving them away; advertising them; abandoning them; or letting them stray. I expect these offences to become law as soon as the Bill is enacted. That is why it was necessary to put the Bill on to the statute book so quickly. From that moment, it will also be a criminal offence to have a pit bull terrier or a tosa in public without a muzzle and a lead. This is an important step which will provide protection to the public immediately the Bill becomes law. There are stiff penalties for these offences—a maximum of six months' imprisonment and a maximum fine of £2,000, which will rise to a maximum of £5,000 when the Criminal Justice Bill, which increases fine levels, becomes law.
Clause 1(3) also creates the offence of owning or keeping a prohibited dog. I intend to bring in this offence, after the other criminal offences in the Bill, at the end of November. It means that there will be a period of some three to four months before owning one of these dogs becomes an offence, when the owner can decide to do one of two things.
First, the owner can decide to have his dog put down voluntarily, and the Government will provide an incentive for owners to do so. Clause 1(3) allows me to make by order a scheme to pay owners who want the dogs put down a sum by way of compensation for the dog and to contribute to some of the cost of its being put down. I am consulting the veterinary profession and animal welfare organisations about the precise level of the sum to be paid to each owner. The cost of putting down a dog varies from one part of the country to another. Many claim that pit bulls are valuable dogs. But much of that value is based on their fighting prowess, or, in the grim euphemisms which dog fighters use, their "gameness" or "heroic qualities". It would be quite wrong for the sum which I shall make available to take this sort of factor into account. Dog fighting is an illegal and deplorable act, condemned by all those with a true interest in animals.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Will the Secretary of State explain how he intends to prove ownership of a dog?

Mr. Baker: I shall come to that point. I am now dealing specifically with clause 1, which, as I shall explain, deals with how a dog will obtain a certificate of exemption and the owner will be identified. I ask hon. Members to wait and all will be revealed.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Home Secretary tell us when he expects to produce the orders which are specifically referred to in clause 1, and in other clauses too? Are the orders already in draft form, or does the Secretary of State have to finish consultations? When does he expect them to be ready?

Mr. Baker: I expect to publish them shortly. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the point during the debate on the timetable motion. I shall specify what the orders will


contain, and they will be ready for consultation while the Bill is in its passage through the House and before it reaches another place.
Before I answer my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson), I shall deal with compensation. The best advice that we have suggests that the intrinsic value of the pit bull terrier is about £25. The sum available to cover compensation and destruction will therefore probably be in the region of £50. It will be payable by the Home Office on production of a certificate from a veterinary surgeon stating that the dog is a pit bull terrier and has been put down. The precise details of the scheme will be set out in an order made under clause 1(3).
I hope that the responsible owners of those fighting dogs will look at the pictures and the descriptions of what they can do, will perhaps think of their own and other people's children as they do so, and will decide that the risk is too great—that these dogs have no place in the family home. If they do that before the end of November, they need have no fear of prosecution. They can claim compensation. They can then seek the advice of a vet, the RSPCA or the Kennel Club about breeds of dog that make safe and friendly family pets, dogs that will not maim and kill.
When I announced to the House on 22 May that I would introduce urgent legislation I said that I would also be considering the possibility of exemptions from the prohibition on ownership of these dogs. The desirability of exemptions was stressed by the animal welfare groups who came to see me. The order-making power in clause 1(5) enables me to set up a scheme for exemptions, about which the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) asked.
The exemption scheme will be tightly drawn and tough. I am discussing the practical details with the police, the veterinary bodies and the animal welfare organisations. Before I make the order under clause 1(5), I shall issue it in draft form for consultation.
Under the scheme, the person who wishes to retain his dog will have to do the following. He will have to obtain a form from the police and provide them with his name and address. He will then have to have his dog, male or female, neutered by a veterinary surgeon. Neutering is of course a means of ensuring that the breed cannot continue. The veterinary surgeon will also mark the dog.
The owner will also have to arrange for the dog to be covered by third-party insurance. He will then have to provide proof of insurance and proof of neutering in order to obtain a certificate of exemption to keep the dog. There will need to be a central index of exempted dogs to which the police or dog wardens will have access to check the details of any dog which they seize or which is the subject of a complaint. We shall be putting the task of running this scheme out to tender very shortly. Whoever is appointed will need to work closely with the police, the Home Office and the other agencies involved.
The owner who wishes to exempt his dog will have to meet the full cost of doing so himself. The cost of neutering by a vet varies according to the sex of the dog. Spaying a bitch can cost in the region of £100.
The cost of insurance is a matter for the owner to work out with his insurance company, but will add to the cost. I accept the point of the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay). The operating costs of the scheme, which would include a central index of exempted

dogs, will be fully recoverable through the fee to he charged for the certificate of exemption. The fee cannot he fully determined until the final details are settled.
The exemption scheme contains a tough and costly set of requirements for the owner of such dogs to meet. A breach of any of the requirements will mean that the dog is no longer exempted and the owner commits the offence of possession in clause 1(3)—an offence as from 30 November. I must emphasise that, as soon as the Bill is enacted, the owner of the dog must keep it muzzled and on a lead in public.
At the end of November, the offence of possessing, or having custody of a prohibited dog will come into force.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Can my right hon. Friend confirm from his discussions with the Kennel Club—probably the greatest authority on the handling of dogs in the country—that it has approved the exemption scheme? My right hon. Friend will be aware that it is against any form of dog registration, but, in a sense, the exemption scheme calls for a scheme of dog registration. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the club has been consulted on this and is happy with the scheme?

Mr. Baker: I can confirm that the Kennel Club has made it clear in discussions with me that it is against any form of general dog registration. However, it is one of the groups that wants to consider operating the exemption scheme to produce certificates of exemption. I am glad to tell the House that two other organisations concerned with animal welfare also want to operate the scheme. Some companies have also expressed an interest. We shall consider which one to choose when we go out to tender. I confirm exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) has said.

Mr. Tony Banks: I apologise for missing the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He has just said that to have a dog or a bitch neutered or spayed will be a costly procedure. I understand that the issue of compensation was discussed earlier, but I believe that it is unfair that those responsible owners—despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) may think about people who own pit bull terriers, there are some responsible owners—who might be unable to afford the process will be caught by the Bill. Will there be some provision for owners to get money from the Government, even if they do not take compensation? They should have some money from the Government to do what the Government are requiring them to do.

Mr. Baker: Clause 1(3) makes it illegal to own such a dog from 30 November unless certain conditions are fulfilled. When the Government change the law to make illegal what is now legal, it is reasonable to compensate those people who offer to have their dogs put down. We do not believe that it is right to compensate those who wish to keep their dogs and to neuter them. I have been in discussion with various animal welfare lobbies and one in particular has said that it is prepared to give assistance to owners who want their dogs to be neutered. However I do not believe that it is right in principle for Government money to be used in that way.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: Can my right hon. Friend describe any difficulties he anticipates in defining such dogs, particularly where cross-breeding may have taken place?

Mr. Baker: One cannot disguise that that is a problem. When I came to the Home Office I was told that it would be difficult to provide such definitions, but I have studied what other legislatures have done. Holland, for example, is now trying to define such breeds much more precisely. The Dutch Government are taking action similar to that which we are proposing.
I have always recognised that the identification of pit bull terriers might be difficult, particularly because of their possible confusion with the brindle Staffordshire terrier. As a result of consultation with interested parties we are producing guidance for the use of customs, the police and dog wardens. I shall issue that guidance as soon as the Bill has been enacted. We are receiving useful help from the Kennel Club and British Veterinary Association on this matter.

Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend said that he is making arrangements for those dogs that will be exempted from the ban. Will those arrangements include some vetting of the premises in which those dogs are kept?

Mr. Baker: I shall answer that when I come to clause 3, which bears upon that matter.
At the end of November the offence of possessing or having custody of a prohibited dog will come into force. Those who have not voluntarily had their dogs put down or successfully had them exempted at that stage will face a term of imprisonment of up to six months and a maximum fine of £2,000, which will rise to £5,000 when the Criminal Justice Bill becomes law. The important point about this offence, in common with any of the other clause 1 offences—it also relates to the question behind the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson)—is that the onus will be on the accused to prove that his dog is not a pit bull terrier.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I wish that my right hon. Friend had shown me how ownership was to be proved. It appears that exemption is a form of negative registration, but what if the man says that he does not own the dog? How does the Secretary of State intend to proceed against him?

Mr. Baker: Identifying and matching an owner to such dogs has never been a problem in the past. Let us say that a complaint is made in January next year about someone keeping a pit bull terrier. That complaint must be investigated either by a dog warden or a member of the police force. Such investigations already take place because the police are frequently called to a house to look at a dog. Someone in that house is either the keeper or the owner of that dog and is responsible for it. From the end of November such possession will be an offence and action will be taken against the owner of that dog as identified in the house at that time.
The conditions of clause 1 mean that the identification of the owner is simple and straightforward. Under clause 1 the owner must go to a police station, register his name and address and get a form. He will then have to send it off and must follow through the various processes that I have outlined.

Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary is in some difficulty in trying to explain how he will deal with the concept of ownership. He can save himself the trouble, because the Bill refers not to ownership, but to possession. The right hon. Gentleman's lawyers will tell him that those are two very different matters, and possession is well covered by case law. He is defending himself against a false point.

Mr. Baker: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's help, such as it is. I am aware that the Bill covers not only ownership, but the keepers. That is important, because there could be a dispute in a household about whether someone was the owner or the keeper.

Mr. Dick Douglas: In view of the possibility of such animals being moved, has there been any consultation with the authorities in the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and the Republic of Ireland?

Mr. Baker: I admit that I have not had any consultations with the Isle of Man. Now that the point has been drawn to may attention, I shall consider it. All that I know about the Republic of Ireland is that it has had a dog registration scheme for three or four years, but only about 30 per cent. of dogs are registered. There may be many reasons for that, but I shall not speculate. Following my statement on 22 May, I was informed that many pit bull owners had moved their dogs to the Republic of Ireland, which led that country to introduce an import ban.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Can my right hon. Friend clarify what will be involved in the registration of the names of owners with the police? Is it simply a matter of collecting a form from a police station, or will the police station have to keep a list of owners?

Mr. Baker: It will be both. A form will have to be collected and the police station will have to keep a list of owners and dogs. After that, it will be passed to an agency to deal with the bureaucracy—perhaps an agency that has already been mentioned, or any other that decides to tender.
An essential part of the Bill is the distinction that it draws between dogs bred for fighting, such as the pit bull and the tosa—that comes under clause 1—and other dogs that might be dangerous if not properly controlled. During exchanges following my statement on 22 May, it was claimed that the proposals did not go far enough and that we should ban rottweilers, dobermans and other dogs that have the potential to be dangeous—

Mr. Tony Banks: Corgis.

Mr. Baker: Indeed. I have considered the matter carefully, in consultation with the veterinary bodies, the RSPCA, the Kennel Club and other organisations. I have concluded that there is not a case for a ban on the ownership of types or breeds of dogs, other than those covered by clause 1.
However, there is no doubt that large and powerful dogs frighten members of the public when they encounter them on the streets or in our parks—and some of them can cause serious injuries. There is some evidence that responsible dog lovers recognise that and are moving away from owning certain dangerous breeds. It is significant that


the number of new registrations of rottweilers with the Kennel Club fell by more than two thirds between 1989 and 1990. That is a welcome trend.
It is vital that those who own such types of dogs and others are made more responsible for the way in which they are controlled. The Bill recognises the strength of that point in the criminal offence that it sets out in clause 3(1). That makes it an offence to allow a dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place, together with an aggravated offence—that is, if the dog actually attacks somebody—in cases where injury is caused to a person. "Public place" is defined in clause 8(2), and "dangerously out of control" in clause 8(4). The penalty for the offence is imprisonment for up to six months or a fine of up to £5,000. The penalty for an aggravated offence—a dog that is dangerously out of control that savages or bites somebody—is two years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine.

Mr. Robin Corbett: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the definition in clause 8(2). Does it include the public parts of tower blocks and maisonettes, which are not in themselves public places but are shared by the residents?

Mr. Baker: We shall be dealing with amendments that relate to that specific point. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that the law is complicated on the definition of a public place. I have some sympathy with the spirit of the amendments, as I shall explain later.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My right hon. Friend knows that I am concerned about the scope of clause 8(4), which states:
For the purposes of this Act a dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will cause injury to any person, whether or not it actually does so.
If a pet dog ran into the street and a cyclist swerved, there might be some reasonable apprehension that that cyclist might be injured. I do not believe that it is the intention of the Bill to capture such dogs in its scope. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would review the clause and ensure that it does not do so.

Mr. Baker: There is a difference between a dog that causes injury to a person by its bite and a dog that causes a traffic accident in which someone is injured. Many such dogs are strays. In the first case, there is a link between the owner, who did not exercise control, and the dog that caused the injury. In the second case, it is not the dog that causes the injury, but the driver of a car because of the resulting accident. It is therefore unlikely that the aggravated offence would be applicable. I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about the matter, and I shall write to him to explain it in greater detail.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Can my hon. Friend confirm that there is already a rule—although seldom applied—that requires all dogs, of any type, to bear owner identification? If there is such a rule—I do not believe that it is appreciated outside this House—can my right hon. Friend suggest how it can be tightened? That is crucial to this important clause.

Mr. Baker: There is indeed a requirement in law for dogs to be tagged. I understand that the law came into operation in March this year and that it is the duty of local authorities to enforce it.
The point that I was making about clause 3 is that it is important because it applies to all dogs. It does not deal only with the fighting dogs under clause 1, nor those covered by clause 2. Clause 3 relates to the offence of a dog being dangerously out of control in a public place. That offence, with its tough penalties, will be a powerful means of ensuring that the owners of all dogs, whatever the type, take proper steps to ensure that they are kept properly under control. When my predecessor put that proposal in our consultation paper a year ago, there was a considerable measure of support for it from the various interested groups and from the general public. That is why we have included it in the Bill. The measure will apply to any dog and its owner. I recognise that if, in future, a particular breed of dog is responsible for a number of serious incidents, to the point where it represents a serious danger to the public, the House may call for all dogs of that breed to be subject to special restrictions.
That brings me to clause 2, which provides a reserve power to impose restrictions in those circumstances. It will enable the Home Secretary to apply the Bill's new criminal offences of failing to muzzle and have on a lead, and of abandoning or letting stray, to be applied by order to named types of dog—that is, a complete breed.
Subjecting any of the recognised breeds of dogs to permanent muzzling in public, and making it a specific offence to abandon a dog of such a breed, would be a very serious step. Clause 2 therefore imposes upon the Home Secretary an obligation to consult widely representatives of the veterinary profession, animal welfare organisations and bodies with a special knowledge of dogs before making such an order. Before such an order is implemented, it must be approved by both Houses of Parliament—that is, by the positive procedure. That is an important power to have in reserve if the provisions in the Bill aimed at encouraging responsible ownership and control of dogs prove not to be sufficient. However, I am not convinced that, at present, there is a case for singling out any types of dogs, other than those specified in clause 1, for action that would apply to all dogs of that type.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I understand the Minister's difficulty with the definition of a particular kind of dog, but with regard to the behaviour of the dog and the control that the owner has over it, would a pack of dogs invading somebody's garden and killing his pets be unacceptable behaviour? Would the dog be considered to be out of control and the owner liable under the Bill?

Mr. Baker: May I consider that question and reply to the hon. Gentleman later in the debate? I should have thought that an offence would have been committed.
It is clearly right for members of the public who are fearful for their safety because of the threat presented by a particular dog to be able to do something about it. Clause 3(4) is an important new change and provides them with the means of doing so. It strengthens the power in the Dogs Act 1871 and enables anyone who considers that a dog is dangerous and is not kept under proper control to apply to the court for an order to require its owner to keep it under control.
The Bill makes two important changes to the existing power. First, it enables the court to make an order, whether or not a dog that is thought to be dangerous has caused injury to a person. It is important to appreciate that


a court order can be made agaainst a dog that has not necessarily been savage or attacked someone. Secondly, it enables the court to specify particular measures by which the dog should be controlled—that answers an earlier question. The measures named in 3(4)(b) are muzzling, keeping on a lead and excluding the dog from specified places. However, the court would have the power to specify other measures if it was thought necessary.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: From what my right hon. Friend says, I understand that he is referring to a magistrates court. If so, is there not a problem, in that that is not a court of record, and what might be specified in one magistrates court would not necessarily be followed in another? Can he at least ask the Lord Chancellor to think about the matter and give guidance to the Magistrates Association?

Mr. Baker: That suggestion makes a good deal of sense. As Home Secretary, I would not be the right person to give guidance on that; it would fall to the Lord Chancellor. I hope that a consistency of practice will develop fairly quickly, but I take my hon. Friend's point.
This is an important new power. It would mean that the person whose next-door neighbour's dog regularly jumps over the fence and creates a danger would be able to seek to have it restrained so that it did not do so. It would also mean that the postman who knew that the dog at, say, No. 53 had a tendency to attack had a means of forcing the owner to stop it attacking him by controlling it.
The refinement and extension of the power in the Dogs Act 1871, as set out in clause 3(4), were warmly welcomed last year when we issued the consultation paper on the control of dogs. I hope that it will be widely used by those whose lives are made a misery by irresponsible owners whose dogs are a danger because they are not properly controlled.

Mr. Marlow: If a postman is walking up the garden path in private premises in somebody's front garden, how can the courts require that person on private premises to stop that dog putting the postman at risk?
If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place, an offence is committed; if a dog runs in front of a car, is it not dangerously out of control in a public place?

Mr. Baker: On my hon. Friend's first point about the postman, the court would have the power, under clause 3(4), to require that the dog at No. 53 that was the subject of the complaint should not be allowed in the front garden. The court could specify that the dog should be allowed only in the back yard, which had a fence round it. It could specify that degree of detail. That is why I emphasise the importance of this new power.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: On the question of dogs not designated under clause 2, will the Secretary of State say how he proposes to exercise continuing scrutiny of some of the dogs mentioned in clause 1 that are cross-bred abroad for importation?

Mr. Baker: The difficulty with defining the pit bull terrier is that it is a cross-breed which has been cross-bred for nearly 150 years, and which has drawn from various strains a degree of viciousness and strength, and a determination to fight and to kill. Other cross-breeds may

be bred in the future. That is why the Home Secretary has been given powers under clause 1 to add other known dogs, or to redefine the cross-breeds. Flexibility is required. It is pointless to include all cross-breeds in the Bill, because various animal welfare interests are still unclear about the definitions. They are being clarified all the time; I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point.
Let me turn to the other provisions of the Bill. Clause 4 sets out powers for the courts to put down the dogs of those convicted of criminal offences under the Bill, and to order those convicted to be disqualified from having further custody of a dog. One amendment would extend that from one year to five years. In the case of the aggravated offence under clause 3 and the criminal offences where a fighting dog is involved, the court is required to order that the dog be put down. The clause also enables the owner of the dog, or the person convicted of the criminal offence, to appeal against the destruction of the dog.

Mr. Rathbone: Further to my previous question—it is pertinent to this clause—if the dog is not identified by the tag that is required under the Bill, will the courts have the absolute right, without further question, to have that dog put down?

Mr. Baker: That happens now if the dog is a stray and is not identifiable. The dog is caught and is usually put down, either by a dog warden or by one of the various agencies that deal with such matters. It may be taken to a home whose rules require that a dog is never put down. It will be no different in the future.
Clause 4 gives the court the power to require that the dog is handed over to be put down, and to reclaim the costs of destruction and the costs of detaining the dog from the offender. If those costs are not paid, they can be recovered as a civil debt.
The court has the power to disqualify anyone convicted of any of the offences in the Bill from having custody of a dog for any period that it thinks fit. A person disqualified from having a dog can apply after one year—one amendment relates to that—to have the disqualification lifted. Clause 4(7) sets out the criteria that the court must have in mind in deciding whether to grant or refuse the application. The court may order the applicant to pay all or any part of the costs of the application. Clause 4(8) makes it an offence to have a dog while disqualified from doing so, or to fail to hand a dog over for destruction.
Clause 5 gives a police constable or dog warden the power to seize a fighting dog that has no muzzle or is not being kept on a lead. From the end of July, when the Bill is enacted, that will be an offence. It also gives the power to seize a fighting dog after possession becomes an offence and other dogs covered by other parts of the Bill. Clause 5(2) gives powers to a magistrate, following evidence that an offence under the Bill is being committed, to issue a warrant authorising the police to enter premises, using force if necessary to search them and to seize any dog or other evidence of the offence. Clause 5(4) gives powers for a dog that has been seized to be destroyed when no prosecution is being brought under the Bill, including when the owner of the dog cannot be traced. That is the very point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) referred.
Clause 7 provides for the costs of any compensation scheme and other costs to be defrayed out of money provided by Parliament. Clause 8 sets out various definitions in the Bill and provides for the Bill, when enacted, to be brought into force in stages.
Madam Deputy Speaker—Mr. Deputy Speaker; I apologise. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be neither neutered nor muzzled. The Bill sets out specific measures to tackle problems posed by fighting and other dangerous dogs. Its main proposals have been the subject of extensive consultation with various representative bodies. They have recognised and supported the need for emergency measures to tackle the dangers posed to the public by fighting dogs.
Some of those organisations and some hon. Members would, I know, like to use the Bill for other purposes related to dogs, their welfare and their ownership. There will be an opportunity to debate dog registration when we discuss the new clause in the name of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—which, together with another new clause, will be debated later this evening.
The Government's views on dog registration are clear. I do not consider that a full-scale registration system, covering some 7 million dogs, recording the ownership of every chihuahua and poodle in the country, would have made the slightest difference to the spate of attacks by pit bull terriers that we have witnessed recently. The ownership of the pit bull terriers that were responsible for the most recent attacks was quickly established: there was no question who owned them. The cost of a registration scheme would be considerable. The RSPCA envisaged a cost of £20 million for setting up and administering it. The cost of a dog warden service would add a further £22 million, according to costing prepared for the RSPCA by the London School of Economics in 1989.
Others will have the opportunity to present their views during the Bill's passage. I hope, however, that hon. Members will not let any differences of view that may exist about dog registration prevent them from giving wholehearted support to other measures in the Bill.
The provisions contained in this public protection Bill are tough and specific. Their aim is to deal quickly and effectively with a serious danger. I believe that an overwhelming majority of the public want this preventive measure, which is intended to avoid a repetition of the attacks that we have witnessed recently, to pass quickly into law. I urge all hon. Members to support it and to ensure that that happens.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: The Opposition support the Bill; there is no question of our voting against it tonight. We believe that the possession of the listed species—the pit bull terriers and the tosas—should be prohibited, and we shall vote for the Bill not least because such a prohibition appears in it.
We also believe, however, that that objective cannot be achieved overnight. That is why, when the Home Secretary made his statement on 26 May, I spoke of eventual elimination. We consider the method by which the Government propose to proceed towards that end—eventual elimination and eventual prohibition—to be about right. We approve of giving people the chance to have a restricted dog put down with compensation, the

possibility of certain limited exceptions, and the elimination or obligatory destruction of any dogs in the restricted categories that do not meet the exemption conditions.
Given that the Home Secretary is apparently no longer listening, I shall be grateful for confirmation from the Minister of State that the British Veterinary Association has agreed to co-operate in the destruction of prohibited species that are not covered by the exemption provision. I understand that when there was talk of wholesale, immediate destruction, the association was reluctant—perhaps, indeed, positively refused—to co-operate. I hope that the Minister will confirm that it is now prepared to do the work that is essential to the Bill's operation.
The Opposition also believe in the need for powers that could be used to protect the public against other dangerous species—and, indeed, could be applied to ensure the proper control of individual dogs that were known to be a threat to public safety. On 22 May, I said that other breeds and species should not be eliminated from the country altogether, but should perhaps be subject to a less drastic form of control. Because less drastic but none the less necessary provisions to that effect now appear in clauses 2 and 3, we have another reason to vote for the Bill—or, at least, to support it, if there is no Division.
The Bill has much more in common with proposals advanced by the Opposition on 22 May than with the prepared statement made at the same time by the Home Secretary. That initial statement said nothing about what I had mentioned on that date—action against some breeds which, although they were occasionally dangerous, it would be wrong to prohibit altogether. Only in a supplementary answer to a question did the Home Secretary contemplate making it a criminal offence to own a dog that became dangerously out of control in public.
It would be churlish for us to vote against a Bill which contains many of the proposals that we have advocated for much longer than the Government have supported them. Virtually all the Bill's proposals could have become law a year ago if the Government had supported the Opposition's amendments to the Environmental Protection Bill. The Bill is, as far as it goes, a move in the right direction, and one what we have long advocated.

Mr. John Bowis: I note from the Order Paper that the right hon. Gentleman wishes the rottweiler to be included in the category of fighting dogs. What consultation or discussion has he engaged in? Has he discussed with the veterinary organisations their willingness to deal with that breed, as he is asking the Government about their role in dealing with the breeds mentioned in the Bill?

Mr. Hattersley: It is extremely unlikely—probably impossible—that the Opposition will divide the House on that amendment. It is essentially a probing amendment.
The Home Secretary has told us about his vast and continuing consultations. As far as I can see, the only people whom he has not consulted are the other parties in the House, the only way in which we can engage in something approaching consultation is to table amendments that force him to talk to politicians in the way in which he talks to dog organisations. The rottweiler amendment is intended to obtain his opinion first hand; and, although I do not believe for a minute that we shall


press it to a Division, I feel that we are entirely entitled to be told what he might have had the courtesy to tell us earlier—why he has come to his conclusions.
As I have said, the Opposition support the Bill—although perhaps not quite so enthusiastically as the Home Secretary, who scaled new heights of self-congratulation in issuing a statement headed:
Home Secretary Welcomes Dogs Bill".
I know that the Government are riddled with divisions and disagreements, but the idea that a Secretary of State should have to announce that he is in favour of a Bill that carries his name surely takes the need to demonstrate unity to a new extreme.
Although I cannot welcome the Bill with the same glee that the right hon. Gentleman has demonstrated, I nevertheless give it my backing. The Opposition feel, however, that it suffers from a number of damaging omissions. I wish to deal with three of them, and to pursue questions that the Home Secretary has answered only in part and not wholly to my satisfaction.
I want legislation to ensure that dogs—not only the classified species, but those described as "Other … dangerous dogs" and those that may be covered by clause 3—are kept in safe conditions. The Home Secretary has told us that, because of clause 3(4), a judge may insist that a dog be kept on a lead, specify muzzling, or introduce other qualifications. Surely, however, some breeds are so potentially lethal that they should in general be treated like firearms. It is an offence to have a firearm in a public place if it may damage a member of the public, and we still insist that such a firearm is kept where it is not likely to go astray and, in particular, cannot be stolen. Why did the Government not wish to include in the Bill a specific provision for the general safe-keeping of dogs in certain categories?
There seem to be no proposals for obligatory third party insurance of all dogs classified as "Other specially dangerous dogs". I take the Home Secretary's point that, when an exception order is made for the two categories to be destroyed, that order may require the dog's owner to keep it in a safe place, as specified by the Home Secretary or his representative. The Bill, however, concedes the existence of "Other specially dangerous dogs". Surely a condition of their ownership or possession should be the possession of third party insurance, which would in some way compensate other people who will surely be attacked and injured.

Mr. Tony Banks: I agree with my right hon. Friend, but can he not push this a little further? Surely compulsory third party insurance for all breeds is highly desirable by means of a dog registration scheme. It need not be a dangerous dog which runs out into the street and causes an accident, following which no one can obtain any compensation.

Mr. Hattersley: I am certainly in favour of the Home Secretary having the power to insist that some groups of dogs, and perhaps all dogs, should be covered by third party insurance. I agree with my hon. Friend that, when we speak of dogs being out of control in a public place, we are referring not only to those that leap on passers by and savage them. I cite an example given by someone putting the contrary point of view—the dog that runs into the road

and under a motor cycle, and is potentially the cause of a fatal accident. In my view, all such risks should be covered by insurance.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Is not the Government's proposal like saying to motor car owners that they must have third party insurance if they own an MG, but not if they own a Lada, on the curious assumption that only the MG can be involved in an accident? Is it not the case that most householders effectively have third party insurance in respect of their dogs, as part of their household insurance, and that it is only a case of ensuring that every dog owner has household insurance, or something in its place?

Mr. Hattersley: My understanding, after speaking to insurance companies last week, is that most householders enjoy such coverage but that some do not—and that in many policies the condition is dubious. I believe that that dubiety should be removed, and that such insurance should invariably exist in the case of dog owners.
My hon. Friend's intervention leads me to the Bill's most serious omission—the Home Secretary's failure to introduce a general registration scheme. The introduction of such a scheme is supported by almost all public bodies concerned with dog ownership.

Mr. Marlow: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?

Mr. Hattersley: I will first give a list of the people who agree with me. The hon. Gentleman may then like to add his name. I refer to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the League Against Cruel Sports, the British Veterinary Association, the Canine Defence League, the National Farmers Union and the Police Federation.

Mr. Marlow: On 26 October 1983, when the House divided on a proposal to introduce registration, 59 Labour Members voted in favour, but the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), unaccountably, voted against. Why has he changed his mind?

Mr. Hattersley: If I did as the hon. Gentleman claims, I did so in error—by which I mean that it was an error of judgment. The hon. Gentleman ought to rejoice at a sinner come late to repentance. When I say that I voted in error, I do not mean that I went into the wrong Lobby—I mean that I made an error of judgment, a failure much greater than the geograhical mistake of walking in the wrong direction. I see this evening as an opportunity to correct my mistake. I hope that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who may similarly have made mistakes of judgment, will follow my good example. As I said, a sinner come late to repentance is much to be applauded.
A registration scheme is essential in pursuit of the objective that the Home Secretary claims to share—that of encouraging responsible dog ownership. During the right hon. Gentleman's various statements on the control of dangerous dogs, he said time and again that legal action must relate to owners, not to dogs. We can all agree with that, since there has been no prosecution of an animal in Europe since the consistory courts in France in the 16th century. However, statements of the obvious are not an adequate substitute for action.
The overwhelming advantage of registration is that it focuses the minds of dog owners on their responsibilities, and could in specific cases be used to ensure that those obligations are observed. It would certainly help to control dangerous dogs and to eliminate the species that the Home Secretary rightly seeks to proscribe. Despite the right hon. Gentleman's earlier opposition, he has conceded the principle of a register for pit bull terriers and tosas which are, or may be, exempted from clause 1 of the Bill. Clause 5, with all its references to schemes and the payment of charges, manages with some difficulty and ingenuity to avoid the word "register". Nevertheless, a register is there, and a register for those limited categories there will be. The principle having been conceded, the Home Secretary should complete his U-turn by agreeing that registration ought to apply to every type of dog.
Without a register, it may be impossible to make some of the Home Secretary's other proposals work. As well as protecting the general public, a register would provide substantial protection—this is important in creating the right climate of responsible ownership—for the thousands of dogs that are bought each year in this country and then casually discarded after a few weeks of neglect. Registration might not prevent irresponsible people from giving puppies away without considering the quality of the homes to which they go, but it would prevent kennels and pet shops from selling dogs to people without the new owners being reminded of their duties of ownership in being obliged to licence the animal that they have bought.
It is absurd for the Government not to allow a free vote. I repeat the undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) earlier this afternoon—that if the Government will change their mind even at this late stage, we will certainly reciprocate and allow a free vote on this side of the House. A dog registration scheme ought not to be the subject of party controversy. One sign of a Government who have lost their way, their nerve, and their identity, is their readiness to identify as great ideological issues questions that more rational people do not believe have anything to do with party controversy and ideology. The Government simply make themselves look ridiculous by treating the vote on registration as though it were a vote of confidence in the whole Administration.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary shouts, "Rubbish." That enables me to make, with some pleasure, the point that the way in which he has dealt with the whole problem has been nothing short of risible. Day by day, he has not so much vacillated as veered crazily from one extreme to another.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point that dog registration should be the subject of a free vote. The Government have imposed a three-line Whip on my right hon. and hon. Friends. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Labour Members will have a free vote?

Mr. Hattersley: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will have a free vote if Conservative Members are allowed a free vote. If the Home Secretary well get up and agree that this is not a matter of party controversy, I will say, "Bravo!" and respond in kind, but the Government cannot operate one rule and expect us to operate another. I repeat

my offer: if the Home Secretary will be sensible, we shall gladly respond to his offer. As I see no movement in that direction, the usual—and very often sterile—rules of the House must be applied.
The Home Secretary's record emphasises one of the principle problems with the Bill. It is inadequate because the Home Secretary has sought not to solve a problem but to deal with newspaper headlines over a very limited period. On Sunday, 19 May, when the right hon. Gentleman appeared with David Frost on "Frost on Sunday", he dismissed out of hand the idea of banning dangerous breeds. He said that New York had tried:
They brought in a law to ban certain breeds, and they had to repeal it because it was unenforceable … as I say, New York tried and had to stop.
He went on to start to say something more constructive:
The sort of things that we are looking at …"—
unfortunately, he did not finish the sentence, so viewers were never told the sort of things the Government were looking at, although they were promised that, whatever they were, there would be considerable consultation about them.
The result was a barrage of press criticism the next day, culminating in the sort of headlines that we all deplore, such as that in the Daily Star, "You Wet Windbag". I have no doubt that that barrage of criticism prompted the Home Secretary to start taking what he presumably regarded as decisive action. On all the evidence, the right hon. Gentleman was still making policy from day to day. In the Sunday Times on 26 May, the Home Secretary reiterated his commitment to what he described as the destruction of dangerous dogs. However, he dismissed muzzling with the words,
You can't muzzle a dog all the time.
Muzzling now appears in clause 2. The right hon. Gentleman gave equally short shrift to the idea of making it an offence to allow a dog to be out of control in a public place. I quote him exactly:
As for control in public places what happened in Lincolnshire was in a private place".
The right hon. Gentleman said that one little girl was with her grandparents when the accident occurred. Now clause 3 makes it an offence for a dog to be out of control in a public place.
The Home Secretary's whole approach is superficial and in some ways trivial. The problem was highlighted in the opening paragraph of The Sunday Times report, which said that the right hon. Gentleman was a cat lover—Cheshire cats, we must assume, with a smile and not much else. Throughout the exercise he has worried not about the problem but about the headlines. His own party has criticised him for that, but I regard the criticism that appeared in the papers today from some of his hon. Friends as less than just, for in looking at headlines rather than problems he has done no more than behave in a way now endemic to the Government as a whole.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us another example of such behaviour last week, by responding not to the banks' imposition of exorbitant interest rates, but to the newspaper outcry about exorbitant interest rates. In both cases the problem was caused by Government inaction and failure to take the necessary steps. In each case, the Government responded with a policy designed to influence leader writers rather than to provide a complete remedy.
Headline chasing is another feature of Governments in terminal decline.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The right hon. Gentleman was chiding me, accusing Ministers of having spent the past 12 years not listening. When we do listen he accuses us of listening too much. In 1977 the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Cabinet when the British Veterinary Association advised against allowing pit bull terriers to be imported. If the Cabinet of which he was a member had taken that advice, all those savagings would not have taken place in the past few years. Why did the right hon. Gentleman ignore that advice when he was a Cabinet Minister?

Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary will be astonished to learn that I accept his criticism. We should have acted then. We all should have grown out of the habit of pretending that whatever was done by Administrations of which we were members was perfect. A mistake was made, but the real issue is whether the real problem is going to be faced now. By dealing with the problem in a superficial way, the Home Secretary fails to face the real issue—which, I repeat, and shall go on to explain, is the question of a dog registration scheme.
I have no objection to the Home Secretary's consulting interested parties, but I find it strange that he makes an ex cathedra statement every day about what he intends to do—and the statements change from one 24 hours to the next. I admire him for the fact that every time he changes his mind he announces his new intentions with the absolute certainty with which I remember him saying, almost a year ago, that there was no question but that the Conservative party would win the Mid-Staffordshire by-election. However, this is a more serious matter, with more serious consequences for the general public.
We need a comprehensive scheme, which must include a general register. When, on 22 May, I pressed the Home Secretary on the subject of a national registration scheme, he gave his objections to such a scheme purely in terms of the terrible case of Rucksana Khan—the awful injuries that the child had endured and which had dominated the headlines that week. Today he talks about a register being inappropriate for poodles and chihuahuas, whereas on 22 May he was saying that a register would be inappropriate for tosas and pit bull terriers. He ought to understand that a register is necessary for those prohibited groups, and now he has conceded the point, but a register is also necessary in the drive to reduce the number of other attacks by other dangerous dogs.
I understand that for the past two years an average of 10 dog attacks per month have required the victims to spend a period in hospital. During 1990, in the metropolitan area alone, there were 468 serious attacks, less than a quarter of which were by pit bull terriers. We need measures that will encourage responsible dog ownership in general, and a register is essential to that process.
The National Farmers Union believes that a register would reduce the number of attacks on sheep by stray dogs. The Automobile Association believes that a register would reduce the number of dogs likely to cause damage by running on to roads.
There is another point about responsible dog ownership that the Government need to consider. The creation of the right climate for responsible dog ownership requires the strongest possible action to be taken against those who breed dogs to fight, organise dog fights or attend them—whatever type of dog is involved. I have no

doubt that the Home Secretary shares that view and will encourage the courts and others to take the strongest action against such people.

Mr. Baker: Dog fighting is illegal, and registration would not bear on the problem to any significant extent. The right hon. Gentleman is still arguing for a general dog registration scheme. As I shall argue later on the amendments, that would not deal with the problem of dangerous and vicious dogs. The right hon. Gentleman has to justify an elaborate scheme covering all dogs. I warn him that if he thinks that he is on to a winner with the registration scheme, he is not—for Peter Mandelson, who calls the shots on Labour policy, is against a registration scheme. He said so in his column in The Sunday People, which is prescribed reading for junior Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. If Mr. Mandelson can engineer the downfall of the Labour party's director of publicity, toppling the shadow Home Secretary should not prove too difficult for him.

Mr. Hattersley: The House may remember that I suggested timidly that the Home Secretary was treating the subject of the debate as trival. If anyone doubted that, the right hon. Gentleman's intervention will have confirmed that it is true.
Apparently the right hon. Gentleman and I are unanimous on taking the strongest possible action against those involved in any way in dog fighting. I cannot see how a man or woman can claim to take a responsible view of dog ownership if the dogs that they own are bred, kept and used for killing live hares, foxes or any other living animal.
The clear problem with the Bill is that when the Home Secretary first considered it he has nothing in his mind except one terrible incident involving one breed. In the House he kept talking about breeds intended for fighting, as if the intention of the dog was somehow important. In fact, as anyone who has been bitten by a dog will agree, the victim is wholly unconcerned with the dog's motives. Nobody cares what is going on in the dog's mind. The problem is what is in the dog's teeth.
All authorities on the subject tell us that almost every dog has the potential to attack, no matter how small or apparently timid it may be. We ought to encourage all dog owners to keep and treat their dogs in a way that minimises the risk. Everyone who thinks about such matters believes that a register would help.
The question of registration is crucial to our reservations about the Bill. When, on 22 May, the Home Secretary dismissed the idea of registration he was even wrong about the way in which a register would have applied to and might have helped in the tragedy of Rucksana Khan. He said:
I do not believe that a general registration scheme would have had any effect on the dreadful incident last weekend. If that dog had been registered for £5 and had a computer number on its collar it would not have been prevented from attacking that little girl.
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has now changed his mind. He believes that if pit bull terriers are to be allowed to remain in society they must have their names on what amounts to a register.
Even before that, the Home Secretary's analysis of the Rucksana Khan case was clearly wrong. I understand that the dog was bought by a young man from a dealer. Under a registration scheme, he would clearly have been required


to register it at the point of purchase. The young man then left the young lady with whom he was living, abandoning the dog in her care.
There is every reason to believe that the young lady would have respected the law, and was greatly concerned at what the dog did while in her custody. Under a registration scheme, she would have been warned of the dangers that the ownership of the dog involved. She would have known—as she would have known in the case of a motor car that had been left in her care—that there was a necessity to licence the animal if it remained in her possession. Knowing of the necessity to licence it, she would have renewed the licence or transferred her name to it. She would then at least have been told of the dangers of keeping the dog and might well have been persuaded to have it put down.
I repeat that, despite his dismissal of the registration scheme, with explicit reference—[Interruption.] I think that the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary wishes to say something—

Mr. Steve Norris: No, no.

Mr. Hattersley: rose—

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Why is it necessary to register the non-violent dogs? That is totally contrary to the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making—he is standing the argument on its head.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. and learned Gentleman is denying all the evidence of the British Veterinary Association and all the animal organisations—all the organisations concerned with dogs, dog welfare and the keeping of dogs—by suggesting that there are some dogs of which he can say, "This one will never attack or do damage." He is also denying all the evidence offered by his hon. Friends that dogs of all breeds may run into the road and cause a lethal accident, and potentially dogs of all breeds will pursue sheep. Opposition Members merely ask for the creation of a climate of responsible ownership.
I repeat that, although the Home Secretary has been converted to the need for the registration of pit bull terriers, which was not his position on 22 May, regrettably he has not been converted to the need for registration in general. He ought to have the grace and sense to accept the need for a general registration scheme because until he does that the Bill will remain inadequate.
I have no hesitation, however, in describing the Bill as a step in the right direction. As the night proceeds, we shall attempt to improve it, but we shall not vote against it because, like the Home Secretary, we wish it to be passed into law at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: I immediately declare my interest. I am the owner of' three west highland terriers and a member of the national advisory panel of Pro-Dog.
Unfortunately, both inside and outside the House there is a group of people who loathe dogs. Many of them would like to see every dog in the land put into an incinerator. They would use any weapon that was put in their hands. Some of those people regard the Bill as a measure which, if exploited in a particular way, might provide the necessary weapon.
We talk of dangerous dogs and cite specific breeds, but it is totally wrong to claim that all dogs of a particular breed are dangerous, or even potentially dangerous. We must ask ourselves how it is that dangerous dogs appear on our streets. Until comparatively recently, all of us in Britain were prepared to accept that, on certain occasions, a dog will bite a person. In the past, we have been prepared to live with that.
In recent years, however, a certain culture has emerged, and people now keep particular types of dog for particular purposes. For example, someone may keep a dog with the intention of training it for dog fighting. No one is more filthy and despicable than the scum who get hold of dogs of whatever breed and train them in the most foul and abominable ways in which to kill each other. There are also people who think that it is clever and macho to have a large dog at their heel. They think that it enhances their image and makes them appear great men—powerful and intimidating.
We must ask ourselves what happens and how those dogs are treated. Any dog can become dangerous if it is not properly fed, exercised and trained—and there are far too many dogs in Britain that are not properly fed, exercised and trained. Let us consider each aspect in turn.
I suspect that many dogs are not properly fed. They may be given food produced by so-called pet food companies, but I sometimes ask myself what is in that food. We know of the various forms of factory farming. We know that food is mass produced. In the past—perhaps more than today—animals in factory farms have been fed on the most disgusting products. All sorts of very unpleasant offal, and other spare materials for which there is no other market, have been recycled. What effect has that had on human beings? Many believe that it has had a serious effect. There are controls on food for human consumption, whereas there are no controls on what is put into dog food. If a dog is not properly fed and does not have a balanced diet, it will inevitably have problems in later life.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Let me defend the reputation of the excellent pet food manufacturers in my constituency, who offer a first-class product. May I also, quite properly, defend the renderers' profession, which provides society with a first-class and unique recycling mechanism in respect of unspeakable objects which would otherwise have to be buried. For once, my hon. Friend does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Bowden: My hon. Friend has a reputation for defending what she regards as her constituency interests —on occasion, without looking beyond them. That can be a somewhat narrow view. Sometimes, we have to consider the national interest rather than just a constituency interest.
What about exercising dogs? Far too many dogs in Britain are imprisoned in small quarters for much of the day. People who own dogs and leave them tied up in the yard or confined to a small room for 10 or 12 hours or more a day are in the process of creating dangerous dogs. Dogs can become frustrated and angry if they are not getting enough exercise or enjoying proper freedom. Similarly, too many people make no effort whatever to train their dogs. All those elements combined lead to the existence of far too many potentially dangerous dogs.
That is one side of the picture. We must remember the other side. Many people in this country regard their dogs as full and complete members of their family and treat them accordingly. They feed them properly and make sacrifices to bring them up and to ensure that they enjoy a full life. How different those people are from those who use the dog as a macho symbol or refuse to give it the care and attention that it should have—not just at Christmas or for a few months, but throughout its life.
The breeds that the House is discussing and which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has mentioned—the dogs referred to as "dangerous"—are those most likely to be used for dog fighting. Many of those dogs are taken away from their mothers when they are young puppies—in some cases only a few weeks old. They are then trained for fighting by a method which can only be described as torture to create viciousness. They are fed various products. Often they are given drugs, to which they become addicted. When the drugs are removed or the dose is significantly reduced, the dogs become extremely fierce and dangerous. In some cases, it is not in the nature of the creature to be like that at all.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Is my hon. Friend going to tackle the problem of dogs which are deliberately cross-bred to enhance the negative qualities that he is talking about?

Mr. Bowden: The two things are linked. Clearly, people who cross-breed dogs because they think that it will make them easier to train for fighting and will make them more vicious or nasty are another example of the despicable business that sadly goes on in our own country and in many other parts of the world.
However, what concerns me about those dogs as a group is that I suspect that every hon. Members knows of a case in his constituency—I certainly know of a number in mine—of pit bull terriers and Staffordshire bull terriers which are totally safe and happy family pets. Some have been described to me as being among the soppiest dogs. The way that such dogs have been brought up, trained and looked after means that they are as safe as any other breed, including my own, the West Highland terrier, which can show considerable signs of fierceness on occasion, especially if they believe that they are protecting their owners.

Mr. Cryer: Following the attack on Rucksana Khan, several observers said that the American pit bull terrier in question was apparently completely playful and had been in and out of nearby flats and played with children. All those witnesses were staggered that the dog had turned out to be so vicious. Therefore, one cannot with any certainty make assumptions about the behaviour of dogs.

Mr. Bowden: One cannot with certainty make assumptions about the behaviour of any animal on this planet—be it human or dog, or any other form of animal. There will be times when any animal, under certain circumstances or for no explicable reason, will behave terribly. The hon. Gentleman is making out a case for the extermination of dogs and that is what worries me about some hon. Members. That is the implication of what he said. Because there have been a tiny number of terrible cases—the number has increased alarmingly in recent

years—the next step is to say that one cannot risk one single case, as there might be a terrible incident, and therefore we must go the whole hog and take the appropriate action.

Mr. Tim Devlin: I wonder whether my hon. Friend will support clause 1, which states that the Home Secretary can designate any breed of dog as dangerous, even if it is a chihuahua which happens to catch his ankle. On the following weekend, under clause 1(3), he can
appoint for the purposes of this subsection
that no one may own such a dog after that day.
Effectively, that is the elimination of dogs. Under this Bill, any dog can be destroyed on any date that the Home Secretary decides. Is that not too wide a power to take?

Mr. Bowden: That is a rather extreme interpretation of clause 1.

Mr. Devlin: It is in the Bill.

Mr. Bowden: It is still an extreme interpretation. I do not envisage my right hon. Friend, or any future Home Secretary, going down that path to that degree. I would prefer to rely upon the sensible application of clause 3, which is a crucial part of the Bill and which, if it is operated effectively and sensibly by the courts, will have a major part to play in helping to control the problem of dogs, which is without doubt a problem in certain areas.
I must not take up the time of the House, as I know that many hon. Members wish to speak and we are on a timetable. We must never forget that dogs provide friendship, companionship and protection to many people. I have some worries about protection. I hope that, when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State winds up, she will be able to comment on that. It worries me, because many people feel that they need dogs in their homes and gardens to protect them. If the dogs are confined within that private area on private property, it would be quite wrong for such a dog to be liable to be destroyed if it were to bite or attack someone while protecting its owners and their property.
There is also the question of dogs in the street. I shall again quote a personal example. On one occasion, my wife was in the street with one of our west highland terriers when she was accosted by a somewhat aggressive person who placed his fist right under her nose. The west highland terrier at my wife's foot growled, made some fierce noises and showed its teeth. I have no doubt that, if that man had struck my wife, the dog would have had its teeth into his ankle immediately. Is anyone suggesting that under those circumstances, when a dog was protecting its owner, the dog should be liable to be killed? It would be terrible and disgraceful if that were the case.

Mr. Ian McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bowden: I prefer not to. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman but I have given way several times and I do not think that it is fair to the House, so I must continue.
I am committed to dogs, as indeed is the Pro-Dog organisation of which I am a member, and we do not believe that dog registration will work. We know that nearly 70 per cent. of owners have not registered in Northern Ireland. Responsible owners would register, but irresponsible owners would not. What would happen


when it came to deciding about exemptions? If we had a dog registration scheme for all 7 million dogs, there would have to be some exemptions—for example, people on income support and many on pensions. There would be whole groups of exemptions; one would need a "Swansea for dogs", which would cost millions of pounds a year to operate.

Mr. Frank Cook: rose—

Mr. Bowden: I would love to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I did not give way to his hon. Friend, and I must continue as quickly as possible.
I was disappointed in the answer of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) when I asked him about a free vote on dog registration. Whatever the Government's reason for their decision, surely the Opposition should have allowed their members a free vote. I know that there are a considerable number of Opposition Members who do not support dog registration —I can see one on the Benches now and he is a man of great integrity. It is wrong that a three-line Whip should have been imposed by anyone, most of all by the Opposition, on an issue of this sort.
I would like firmer control of breeders to result from this Bill. They are the root of many of the problems. I would also like it to result in the elimination of puppy farms, the closing and elimination of pet shops and the selling of pets in supermarkets, and higher fines for irresponsible owners. Collars and discs are now required by law and I want significant fines for those who have failed to obey that law and for people who let their dogs run loose or foul the pavements—significant fines of not £5 or £10 but £50 or £100. If we were to follow those lines, we would go some way to deal with the dog problem that exists.
Society needs dogs. No law should be passed that will allow dogs to be penalised by dog haters and those blinded by prejudice.

Mr. Terry Lewis: My mind goes back to the early days of my political career, when I was a junior urban district councillor. After about five days in office, I attended a public meeting of irate pensioners who were complaining about dog dirt on their open-plan gardens. One of the spokespeople said, "We want signs on the grass saying that dogs cannot defecate here." Being a clever and bright young thing, I said, "That is all very well, but dogs cannot read." I was immediately set upon by 35 pensioners and given the going over of my life. I have not had such a comprehensive going over since. Going through the door, a wise old councillor tapped me on the shoulder and said, "You might remember now, Terry boy, that dog dirt is a potent political issue."
I am reminded of that by the activities of the Lord President and the Home Secretary on this issue, which I accept are far more serious. Their minds are conditioned by the political consequences of not doing something. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who rightly drew attention to the political gymnastics of the Home Secretary over that terrible weekend when Rucksana Khan was savaged by a pit bull terrier.
Only a few days before that young child was savaged, I tabled an early-day motion outrageously suggesting that

10,000 pit bull terriers should be culled. I intended to raise the temperature of the debate in order to get something going. I was the most surprised person in the world when I heard the Home Secretary on the programme to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Spark brook referred saying, "We cannot do anything," yet on Monday agreeing with my outrageous idea of putting down 10,000 dogs.
The Lord President made the position worse, because he spoke of speedy solutions. I do not mind speedy solutions, and I shall support the Bill tonight, but it does not go far enough, and I hope to contribute in more detail in Committee. Speed is relevant to the issue. The House should not forget that, more than two years ago, a young girl in Scotland, Kelly Lynch, died. No hon. Member has mentioned that that 11 or 12-year-old girl was savaged to death by two dogs. They were not pit bull terriers but rottweilers. If that did not concentrate the minds of the Home Secretary's predecessor, certainly of the Cabinet and of other hon. Members, something should have. I regret that the Rucksana Khan case led to the introduction of the Bill, but why the blazes were we not in this position two years ago, when a young child lost her life?
That sets the scene for the debate, which is being held because of the impending general election and not because of the major issue of dog control. If the Government wanted seriously to tackle the dog problem, they would start with a dog registration scheme and all that goes with it. It is not just registering dogs and spending £20 million setting up the scheme. However, it must be remembered that the Cabinet have thrown £15 billion at registering people. They have not solved that problem, and, for political reasons, many billions more will be thrown at it. We cannot accept that as a political excuse.
I am sympathetic to some of the issues that have been mentioned, such as muzzling, keeping dogs on leads and exclusion zones, but each has its own problems. Has any hon. Member tried to muzzle an adult dog that has been brought up not to be muzzled? There will be a few neurotic adult dogs going round with muzzles on for the first time in their lives.

Mr. Morley: There will be a few fingers missing, too.

Mr. Lewis: I assure my hon. Friend that I shall not muzzle any pit bull terriers.
I accept that dogs should be on leads in public places, but in the area that I represent, there are limited areas where dogs can be exercised securely. Pit bull terriers, rottweilers and alsatians must be exercised: the bigger the dog, the more exercise it needs. It is all very well if someone has a huge garden, a paddock or a private place to exercise such dogs, but someone who must exercise his dog in public places can experience severe difficulty. Keeping such a dog on a lead can be crueller than putting it down.
Other problems must be debated and resolved. We cannot throw a Bill on the Floor of the House, guillotine it and say, "That will solve the problem", because it will not.
I regret that the provisions of clause 3 do not extend directly to private property. The courts are not the answer, because they are clogged up with poll tax defaulters and associated problems. A postman or woman has a one in four chance of being mauled by anything from a chihuahua to a pit bull terrier.

Mr. Cryer: Or a canvasser.

Mr. Lewis: The same applies to a canvasser, indeed. Last year, 7,000 postmen and women were bit by dogs.
I support the Bill, I hope to be able to make a constructive speech in the Committee stage and I regret that there is no dog registration scheme, but I believe that a dog's breakfast will be created if we do not address the other issues that I have mentioned.
I should rather call the dog registration scheme a comprehensive dogs Act. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) mentioned the problem of puppy farming. In pub car parks in north Wales on a Sunday morning, one can see dealers from Manchester picking up five-week-old puppies that should not be taken from bitches at that age and taking them back to Manchester to be sold for £150 or £200.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Does my hon. Friend recall that some of those puppy farmers set themselves up in business in response to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food seeking to divert farmers from agriculture production? The same policy is pursued in the EC, which is seeking to subsidise greyhound breeding in member states.

Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend makes the point well. I believe that he has raised the matter in the House at least once.
We can no longer tolerate almost neurotic dogs being sold in pet shops and so-called pet supermarkets like those in the Manchester area. Control of that must be part of a comprehensive dogs Act. We all know what is going on and we know who the perpetrators are, but RSPCA inspectors have no jurisdiction in puppy farms. Those farms might have two or three brood bitches—birth machines that are used time and again to produce pups.
The Kennel blub has been prayed in aid several times in the debate, but it is as culpable as anybody for that puppy farming. One can go to those disreputable dealers—most of them are disreputable—and be given a piece of paper guaranteeing that a dog is of a certain pedigree.

Mr. Hardy: I am not a member of the Kennel Club, and have not been for quite some time, but the club has been seeking ways of discouraging that practice without being in breach of its own regulations, which it must observe. The Home Secretary will be aware that the responsibility lies with the Home Office. One of my hon. Friends is eager to bring in a Bill on the subject. It could have been presented to the House a long time ago, and I am sure that it would have met with widespread approval. It is time that the Home Office facilitated the passage of such a measure.

Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend would have more chance of convincing me if the Kennel Club took a more robust approach and a less defensive stance on most dog issues.
I shall reiterate the point that has recurred throughout my speech: responsible dog ownership. The registration scheme would promote responsible dog ownership. I should declare my own interest: I have always had fox terriers. Why fox terriers? My ancient old dog died a year ago, but I am still a responsible dog owner. That seems contradictory, but I am responsible because I know that, with my life style—five days in London and two days back home in my constituency—I cannot find or afford the time to deal responsibly with a new puppy. One needs three or

four hours a day to train a puppy to be a responsible adult dog, and because I cannot do that, I shall wait until I retire from this place before I own another dog.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), who drew on his experience as a dog owner and in local government to give some interesting highlights of dog ownership and dog control.
As the House knows, I am parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales, and I declare that interest. Although, like many hon. Members, I regret the need for its introduction, I support the Bill because I believe that the time has come to take action to prevent the continuation of attacks on the public, families and police by ferocious and dangerous dogs, particularly pit bull terriers and other breeds of fighting dogs, including new breeds. I assure my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the Police Federation wholeheartedly supports his prompt action in introducing the Bill today.
Owners of pit bull terriers in my constituency who have made representations to me understand the need for the Bill, particularly as it does not single out pit bull terriers, but applies to other types of fighting dogs such as the Japanese tosa.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what he said about the attitude of the Police Federation because I have seen a press release in the name of Mr. Barrie Clarke, the federation's press and public relations officer, which gives a different impression? It says:
I think the Home Secretary has been badly advised by officials of the home office
on his proposals to deal with dangerous dogs. The press release complains of a lack of consultation.

Mr. Shersby: There is no conflict between what I am saying and the press release to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Last week the federation was critical of proposals which, it believed, would involve the police in administering the scheme. That was because they already have a great deal to do in preventing crime and did not wish to shoulder the responsibility for the scheme's management. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it perfectly clear today that it is not to be the responsibility of the police, whose sole responsibility will be to issue the forms and register the names of people who apply for them, so that problem has been overcome. There is no doubt that the Bill has the wholehearted support of the Police Federation.
There is quite a lot of anecdotal evidence about attacks on individuals, in addition to information supplied by hon. Members about serious attacks that have resulted in injury or death. Those incidents have been in our minds in recent weeks, but there have been many other attacks in recent months which have gone unreported, but which emphasise the urgent need for action.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I sound like a policeman on duty for a minute or so, but I should like to put a few facts to illustrate my argument. Between November 1989 and May 1990 the Metropolitan police carried out a survey of dangerous dog incidents. I think that that survey is probably the only one available that gives an accurate picture. It showed that there were 237 incidents involving ferocious dogs in the Metropolitan police district during that time, of which no fewer than 95


were carried out by pit bull terriers. Some 50 of them were carried out by German shepherd dogs, 14 by dobermans and the rest by a variety of other breeds. Those are interesting figures because they give the House a clear idea of the proportion of attacks carried out by pit bulls and German shepherd dogs—other breeds came pretty far down the list.
Many of those attacks—but by no means all—were carried out by abandoned dogs, which form a large part of the problem. On 17 January 1990 at Croydon lane, Banstead, an abandoned American pit bull terrier attacked passers-by, probably after it had had a light. In Lordship lane SE22, an American pit bull terrier was tied and abandoned in an alley way. On 7 May in Old road, Crayford, a pit bull was thrown from a passing car. It was scarred, the police assumed that it had been fighting and it was put down. In November 1989, at Gresley close N15, a Staffordshire bull terrier made an unprovoked attack on two children in its owner's family. A number of attacks have taken place on children in the family of the owner of the animal involved.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: It has been said that some dogs are good family pets. Having spoken to the police, does the hon. Member agree that there is evidence of people breeding aggressive dogs with aggressive bitches to produce even more aggressive offspring?

Mr. Shersby: There is evidence of that, and it is reflected in the number of attacks on the family or close relatives of the owner of the animal involved.
In November, there was an attack at Walton Green, New Addington, when an American pit bull terrier attacked children aged seven and 11 in the street causing puncture wounds to their elbows, chin and cheeks. In another attack at Walsham road SE14, an American pit bull entered a school and attacked a child. It was a completely unprovoked attack and the child and school staff had no way of knowing that the animal would enter the school.

Mr. David Ashby: Should we not put the subject in perspective? Although I do not wish to support pit bull terriers—the numbers of attacks frightening—there are an estimated 7·5 million dogs in this country. In comparison to the total number of dogs, the number of attacks seems small.

Mr. Shersby: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, but I must remind him that it is clear from the Metropolitan police survey, which looked at 237 incidents during six months in London, that 95 incidents concerned pit bull terriers. That is a substantial proportion. I will give my hon. Friend another example. In Kennington park, a large group of youths with 10 American pit bull terriers threatened the police. It was thought that the youths may have been preparing the animals for a dog fight. At Horton road, Yiewsley, in my constituency, in April last year, an unsupervised pit bull terrier attacked two goats in a compound, resulting in the death of both goats. That is the nature of the problem with which the Bill is intended to deal.
There is no doubt that the pit bull terrier is one of the most prominent animals in causing death and destruction to human beings and to other animals.

Mr. Devlin: The Metropolitan police figures for 1990 show that of the 468 incidents of attacks on humans, 111 were carried out, as my hon. Friend said, by pit bull terriers. However, 86 were carried out by alsatians. According to the definition in clause I, it is unlikely to be argued that alsatians are fighting dogs or dogs bred for the purpose of fighting. Unless my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary takes a wide interpretation of clause 1, such attacks will continue unabated by the Bill.

Mr. Shersby: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is listening carefully.
I made the point that 50 attacks during the six months concerned were carried out by German shepherd dogs, which are regarded as being the same as the alsatian breed. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he would have powers under the Bill to extend the provision. If, on the basis of evidence available to him and to his colleagues in the Home Office, he comes to the conclusion that the German shepherd breed constitutes a danger as it does in certain circumstances, he will no doubt use the powers conferred on him by the Bill to deal with that problem.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: During my lifetime, I have been bitten eight times by dogs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I will tell the House exactly where I was bitten. I was bitten on the wrist by a cairn terrier when I offered a sandwich to its mate. That happened at Mackie's Hole in Angus. I was next bitten in Gifford by a collie. I was next bitten by an alsatian when canvassing in Liberton. I was next bitten by an alsatian when canvassing in central Edinburgh. I was next bitten by an alsatian when canvassing in Perthshire. I was next bitten by a scottie when canvassing in Perthshire. I do not think that dogs are all that good about not biting—certainly not biting me.

Mr. Shersby: I am tempted to say that my hon. and learned Friend has made a biting contribution to the debate, but perhaps that is unwise.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made what I and the police thought was a good speech to the police conference in Bournemouth. I and the police officers there listened to that speech with care and attention. I can tell my right hon. Friend that there was a great sense of relief that he was prepared to tackle the problem and that his action has the support of the Opposition. My role in advising the police is a cross-party one and I am delighted that the Opposition have taken a helpful attitude in supporting the Bill tonight.
I was told by a number of officers from various parts of the country at the police conference about the increasing use of pit bull terriers by drug dealers. They use them literally as an offensive weapon to prevent the police from entering premises in which it is believed that drugs are being kept. I was also told that in the United States, that aspect of the problem has become so serious that the police break down the door with a sledgehammer and then shoot the animal concerned without question before searching the premises of the suspected drug dealer.
I am not sure that I command the agreement of the House in saying that we do not wish such a situation to develop here. The police oppose the carrying of firearms and they do not wish to use them in such a situation. However, we must support the police by dealing with the problem and ensuring that drug dealers and others who


use ferocious dogs as an offensive weapon can no longer do so. I welcome, therefore, the compulsory muzzling or leashing of pit bull terriers as soon as the Bill becomes law.
I also strongly support the prohibition on possession of a pit bull terrier unless it has satisfied the tough requirements proposed in my right hon. Friend's exemption scheme, which requires certification, confirming neutering and physical marking. The police are glad to know that responsibility for certification will not impose further burdens on their time, which is already under considerable strain. I am glad to know that the tasks will be put out to tender. I regard that as typical of my right hon. Friend's willingness to listen. He has been criticised by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) for making changes since the scheme was announced only a couple of weeks or so ago, but he has listened not only to hon. Members, but to the police, and he deserves all credit for so doing.
The Bill provides for the control of dogs on a public place. Although the police strongly support the Bill, they are still concerned that clause 3 refers only to a dog being dangerously out of control in a public place, which is defined as being
any street, road or place (whether or not enclosed) to which the public have or are permitted to have access whether for payment or otherwise.
In the Home Office consultation paper to which the Police Federation responded, it was envisaged that powers might be available to the police in any place other than a public place to enable them to control or destroy dogs that were dangerously out of control.
Such a provision would have enabled a police officer to enter premises, as the police often do, with or without a warrant, to deal with domestic disputes and to be able to deal with a dangerous dog. I want my right hon. Friend to consider the following scenario. A police officer is called to go to a home to deal with a domestic dispute. That happens every day. That constable may face a ferocious dog. How is he to deal with a ferocious animal being set on him? Under the Bill, it will not be possible for the provision to apply because the police officer is in a private, not a public place. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for State, when he replies to the debate, will tell the House about the Home Office's thinking on that point.
If such a scenario occurs, the police can, if support is available, try with the assistance of a dog handler or a veterinarian to tranquilise the dog. The destruction of the dog on private premises would always be a last resort. However, why is there no provision in the Bill to deal with the problem that a constable may face? Let us consider a constable who could be of any age from 18 to retirement age, and who faces a ferocious animal. That is a difficult task.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider that problem further, because the police are concerned about it and the problem has clearly not yet been resolved. I assume that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided as a matter of policy that an offence should occur only in a public place. However, I have been told that it could be argued that an owner or a person in charge of a dog may not allow a dog to leave the home and therefore enter a public place. That person may then be able to plead a defence if the dog escapes without the owner's intervention.
The same question could arise in relation to clause 1(2)(e), where there is no definition of "stray". When my right hon. Friend the Minister of State replies to the debate, perhaps he can tell me whether "stray" is defined in some ancient statute about dogs. I should be interested in such a definition.
Clause 1(3) relates to the destruction scheme. Who will administer that scheme? Why does there appear to be an apparent contradiction in clause 4(4)(b), which states that the offender may be ordered by the court
to pay such sum as the court may determine to be the reasonable expenses of destroying the dog and of keeping it pending its destruction",
and clause 4(5), which states:
Any sum … shall be recoverable … as a civil debt"—
a point that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made earlier? The Metropolitan police spent £56 per dog in kennelling fees between 1 January and 31 December 1990 because of the difficulty of finding suitable accommodation for pit bulls. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is the police authority for the metropolis, I hope that he will be kind enough to consider those figures.
The Metropolitan police has had to use expensive private kennels while the fate of dogs was determined. Would it not be better to include in any fine imposed by the court the cost of kennelling the dog pending determination of its fate?
According to clause 3(1), if a dog is out of control in a public place, the owner
is guilty of an offence
and is liable, according to clause 3(3)(b),
on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both.
How would the Crown prosecution service deal with such offences given the present contraints on its financial resources? The service's policy of reducing aggravated to non-aggravated offences causes me to speculate that there might be a problem. In invite my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to compare with the offences provided for in the Bill the issue that has arisen over the reduction of aggravated bodily harm to common assault in many cases where a person has been charged with assaulting a police officer. If the CPS is obliged, for financial reasons, to mitigate a charge under clause 3(3)(b), the clause may transpire to be relatively toothless.

Mr. Devlin: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Shersby: I have nearly finished, and no doubt my hon. Friend will make his contribution if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I welcome the fact that by 30 November the Bill will be full in force and that the exemption scheme will be introduced in the meantime. I am sure that the result will be greater protection for the public and for the police from savage attacks by these ferocious dogs. I am grateful for the prompt action that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Clearly many hon. Members want to take part in the debate. Brief speeches would be very much appreciated.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I will try to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Some hon. Members have given the impression that dogs are dangerous only when they bite. People who are nervous when dogs are around them can be deeply upset and their day may be spoiled if, in the course of their business, a dog barks loudly and runs towards them. In Glasgow, I have often seen a great big alsatian running towards someone and the owner has shouted, "It's all right. It won't touch you." I dare say such things have been said elsewhere in the country as well.
The Home Secretary said that the registration scheme would cost about £20 million. Is he aware that uncontrolled dogs cost millions around the country? We have in Glasgow some of the finest parks in the world. When I was a boy, you could go to the park and the park warden would shout at someone if a dog was not on a lead.
Nowadays, parents avoid taking their young children to parks. They may be in a play area with their children for only five minutes and a pit bull terrier or other large dog may enter that area. Because of the publicity that those dogs have received, parents remove their children from a potentially dangerous situation. It is dangerous not only because of the risk of being bitten, but because dogs are allowed to urinate and do their business in areas where young children are supposed to play. There must be a monetary loss if parks are properly maintained, but the only people who enter them are dog owners.
The Minister responsible for housing in Scotland and the other Scottish Ministers will claim that there is no need for the local authority to build new housing in Glasgow because there is plenty of housing to go round. Ministers know full well that on some housing estates in Glasgow, the people are ashamed of the dirt and filth around them. One of the reasons why people want to get out of those estates is that dogs can wander around them and do what they want.
There is a tradition of terraced housing in England. However, imagine a tenement building with a large dog on the premises. The dog has no idea that he is supposed to allow other people to get into their flats. That dog is territorial, and he will attack any stranger approaching the tenement. People may have their flats in the tenement looking like palaces, but there is dirt and filth in the entrance.
I was brought up in a Glasgow slum, and it sickens me to see houses that are only 30 years old being demolished. One of the causes of that is that we have allowed dogs to run out of control.
I have tabled an amendment about multi-occupation. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to reassure us that, when he talks about dogs in public, "public" means the foyers, lifts and staircases of multi-storey flats, deck access buildings and tenement buildings. Some of the so-called barrack-room lawyers will say, "Well, my dog has to he controlled on the pavement, but once it gets inside the tenement building or multi-storey flat, we can do what we want."
I am amazed when I hear people say that the problem is not the dog but the bad owner. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) referred to the bad owner and a dog which could be regarded as a lethal weapon. A loaded and primed machine gun will harm no one unless a bad owner sets it

off. The same applies to dogs. No one has anything against dogs, but we know that if dogs are put into the wrong hands they can cause much bother.
The Scottish Special Housing Association in my constituency restricted dogs, and its multi-storeyed flats are a pleasure to live in. I do not wish to criticise the district council, but the lifts in some of its multi-storeyed flats are getting old. We are down to one lift in a multi-storeyed building. Men and women who regularly pay their rent have to step into a lift to go up 17 storeys, and they must share that lift with a pit bull terrier or a rottweiler. I have written to the housing department saying that I could not believe my eyes when, on the 18th floor of a multi-storeyed building, a great dane came into the lift. If tenants and dog owners are inconsiderate, I see no reason why the House should not do something about it.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) mentioned the police in New York, but at least they have guns. I do not want that to happen here, but the only line of defence for police in Glasgow, London and other cities are fire extinguishers. Apparently, they disorient dogs. If drugs, for example, are not found in a house, the owner could charge a police officer with causing undue suffering to a poor animal.
The legislation is long overdue. We should have dealt with the matter years ago.
I shall bear in mind what you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but a postman who was interviewed on television summed up the matter when he said, "This is a good job, which has been wasted by dogs." At a social evening held by electrical trade unions on Friday, electricity meter readers told me that the problem is getting so bad that at least four personnel are being bitten each week. They dread the school holidays. When a child gets up in the morning, his first duty is to open the door and let out the dog. The electricity worker is usually the first to be confronted by that dog.
I have heard what my hon. Friends have said about the legislation being pushed through. In a sense, it is good that it is being pushed through, because it has not allowed the vested interests or the lobbyists to work on various Members of Parliament. At least we are considering the matter based on our constituency experiences.

Mr. Roger Gale: I thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the manner in which he has listened to representations. It saddens me that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), in his churlish attack on my right hon. Friend, found it necessary to chide him for the way in which he has taken on board representations from a large number of people.
In his statement on 22 May, my right hon. Friend made it abundantly plain that he intended to take representations and that he intended to be flexible. He has done exactly that. Throughout the Whitsun recess, my right hon. Friend met representatives of the Joint Association for the Care of Pets in Society, the British Veterinary Association, and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. He took representations from owners of American pit bull terriers, and even found time to see me and to hear my views as vice-chairman of the all-party animal welfare group.
My right hon. Friend has produced a Bill that cannot possibly be all things to all people. It is not possible to satisfy both sides in such an emotive argument. The measures that he has brought before the House go a long way towards meeting the needs and concerns of those who own pit bull terriers, those who own other large breeds of dog, and the many members of the general public who are extremely concerned about the manner in which dogs are trained, handled and looked after.
Clause 3 creates the much-needed new offence of permitting dogs to be dangerously out of control in a public place. I was slightly alarmed to hear my right hon. Friend place a caveat on the control of dogs that might cause traffic accidents. It is an absolute fact that, year on year, a large number of accidents are caused as a result of stray dogs—dogs out of control—running amok among traffic. It is probably true that as much injury is caused to human beings as a result of such an incident as is caused by dogs carrying out, for example, the savage and tragic attack about which we have heard so much today.
When I met my right hon. Friend, I suggested that he might look carefully at the age of the handlers of large dogs. I urge him, perhaps before the Bill reaches another place, to reconsider that point. It is an absolute fact that a six-stone dog in the control of a five-stone child will win. It is quite possible for a large dog that is out of control to drag a small child under a truck. Having been hit by a truck, that child will be just as dead as he would be if he had been savaged by the animal.
If my right hon. Friend is to take the powers that clause 2 affords him, he might do well, when designating other breeds, to consider designating that minors should not be allowed to be in control of them in public places. That would be for the protection of the animal, which clearly needs to be kept in control on a leash—it is not enough for an animal to be on a lead—and for the protection of the child concerned.
Clause 3, which provides for magistrates to specify control measures to be applied on complaint that a dog is dangerous will be widely welcomed. The day of the adage that a dog should be allowed one bite is over. It is time that we recognised that the courts must have powers to place controls on individual animals. I am pleased about that, and I believe that the public will also be pleased. The courts will take advantage of that power.
My right hon. Friend has struck the right balance between responsible owners of pit bull terriers, all of whom recognise that they have control of highly dangerous animals, and other owners who are wildly irresponsible and who breed dogs purely for fighting and other unpleasant purposes. I am sure that the majority of people —certainly those pit bull owners who have made representations to me—will accept the restrictions that my right hon. Friend intends to place upon them. They will understand the necessity to phase out the breeds of fighting dogs that are currently available in this country, and they will accept the spirit of compromise that my right hon. Friend has reached.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary deserves not carping criticism but considerable praise from the Opposition. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is not present. It ill behoves him to promote dog registration. My hon. Friend the Member for

Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) led the previous campaign to introduce dog registration. I was privileged to support her in that campaign, and on that occasion we lost by just three votes. Some of us were sad that more than 20 Opposition Members failed to turn up to support us on that occasion. That shows how much they really care about dog registration. This move by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is no more than political opportunism.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gale: I do not intend to give way to the hon. Gentleman. However, I shall place on record my appreciation of the fact that both he and a number of his hon. Friends support dog registration just as passionately as many Conservative Members. The all-party animal welfare group is just that—an all-party group. Members of Parliament in all parts of the House support its aims. It ill behoves the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook to seek to claim this particular measure as his own. The new clause that has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) will, I hope, attract wide support, if there should be a vote upon it.

Mr. Corbett: The hon. Gentleman has been uncharacteristically unfair. He knows that, both last time and tonight, it was possible for the Opposition, in their own name, to table an amendment to introduce a national dog registration scheme. We deliberately stood aside so that an all-party proposal could be tabled, which we shall support.

Mr. Gale: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but my criticism was of his right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook, who made what I thought was an uncharacteristically carping speech, in which he sought to claim for his own the measures that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has carefully devised; and in which he also sought to criticise the actions that have been taken in the House to introduce dog registration. He must remember that 20 of his hon. Friends failed to support it last time around. This Johnny-cum-latterly approach is not good enough. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present at the time, but the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook had to concede earlier in the debate that he had voted against dog registration.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has recognised, in the orders that he intends to introduce under clause 1, the need not for, in his words, a national dog registration scheme—which is what many people would like—but for the licensing of a particularly dangerous breed of dog, if any of those dogs are to be allowed to remain in the United Kingdom. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has recognised the need for such a scheme. At the very least, the House should recognise that a dangerous dog is every bit as dangerous as a shotgun. It is necessary to license a shotgun, although it is unnecessary to license an air rifle.
Again I say to my right hon. Friend—I have put it to him privately on a previous occasion—that, if he is prepared to return to the House later tonight and say that he is willing, under the powers contained in clause 2, not to consider licensing but definitely to license those dogs that he designates, I for one will be satisfied. If he is not prepared to do that, I am sure that he will understand me when I say that I shall most certainly support my hon. Friend's amendment. I believe that some form of


registration is necessary. However, I emphasise that the overriding need is for the licensing of dangerous dogs. If we can achieve that, we shall have achieved a great deal.

Mr. Ashby: Does my hon. Friend recognise that some hon. Members would vote against Second Reading if my right hon. Friend were to return to the House and say that he was prepared to license the dogs that he had designated?

Mr. Gale: That is a matter for my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider.
With my proviso about the omission of a registration scheme that many of us would like introduced, I believe that the Bill will help to control dangerous dogs, and will also make a major contribution to animal welfare. I am therefore grateful to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for having introduced it.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: This Bill has been needed for some time. There has been widespread concern about the growing number of attacks by ferocious dogs in places frequented by the public, although, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) said, not always so clearly in public. None the less, they terrify members of the public. The girl aged 12 in Scotland, who was referred to earlier—Kelly Lynch —was killed by two rottweilers. That case did not lead to the introduction of the legislation that some people considered necessary even then. The Bill has been introduced in response to a peculiarly horrifying attack upon another girl, this time in Bradford, which mercifully did not result in her death—but only just.
The Bill may come to be regarded as more significant for what it provides generally than for what it provides for specific breeds of fighting dogs. The proposed new offence in clause 3, that of permitting a dog of any breed to be dangerously out of control in a public place, may in time prove more significant than the provisions for designation in clause 1. I welcome the fact that the Government have decided to take action about fighting breeds of dogs, but there are major definition problems. We shall need to be watchful. Attempts will undoubtedly be made to import cross-breed fighting dogs that fall outside the scope of the provisions in clause 1.
The breeding of dogs for fighting is a covert trade. The associated ugly business of dealing in such dogs is carried on with the intention of concealing, as far as possible, what is being done. It will not be easy to adopt a piecemeal approach—by designating from time to time particular breeds or part-breeds as they come to be perceived to be the particular menace.
None the less, the Home Secretary was right to abandon his initial proposal that all dogs of the specified breeds should be put down. That would have been unenforceable and would have aroused a backlash of public opinion that would have defeated the purpose of the measure. To neuter, muzzle and impose heavy fines on those who do not conform with the law is a common-sense approach that should be welcomed.
The principal requirement, which I welcome—that owners of specified dangerous breeds should carry third party insurance—seems to me, however, not to have been practically worked out with the insurance industry. The Government should talk in particular to the Association of British Insurers about the practical consequences of the

proposal. There are considerable doubts about whether insurance companies will be prepared to insure the specified breeds.
It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, that normal household cover includes dogs, but the more dangerous the dog the more difficult it is to obtain cover. I should like to hear what consultations the Minister of State, Home Office—the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold)—has had with insurance companies about the problems that they envisage in extending insurance effectively.
The Bill's insurance requirements are limited. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I would like the requirement of third party insurance extended to cover all dogs. We must recognise that, although the more spectacular attacks recently have been by dangerous breeds, dogs kept for other purposes have badly wounded in many attacks. The figures produced for the metropolis show that many dogs that are bred to provide guide dogs for the blind—alsatians being widely used for that purpose—are among the most dangerous dogs. Such dogs should be covered by compulsory third party arrangements.
Breed is not the critical issue, because mongrels rank third or fourth among those dogs responsible for damage and for serious attacks. We submit that the insurance requirements should cover ownership of any dog. The duties of ownership will not be properly discharged unless one point is driven home much more forcefully than the Government have done in this debate and more forcefully than has been demonstrated in their approach to the problem. For that reason, we strongly believe that the time is right to introduce a nationwide registration scheme.
The Bill is seriously defective, even within its limited scope. Admittedly, it does not attempt to deal with many of the problems arising from dog ownership—for example, the fouling of pathways and the difficulty of keeping pathways open for use by young children, to which the hon. Member for Springburn referred. The ambit of the Bill is narrow—it is designed to deal with attacks on members of the public by savage dogs. It would he strengthened by a dog registration scheme, bringing home to owners their duty to keep their dogs under control and enabling evidence to be produced, where they fail to do so, that they are responsible for their dogs, whether through ownership or through possession.
Such a scheme can be administered. We have had licence schemes this century for longer than we have not. It should be possible for a licence scheme to be administered by local authorities. The police are already heavily overburdened and, although there should be full consultation with them, it is eminently suitable to set up a scheme financed by a registration fee given to local authorities to enforce dog control, to provide education and to implement an anti-fouling policy. Such a scheme has been recommended by a number of local authority associations and would be workable.
Additional resources will be needed if local authorities are to operate effectively. Only about half the local authorities have dog wardens. There will be opportunities later, in the debate on the cross-party new clause and on the new clause tabled by my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends to introduce a registration scheme, to consider the arguments in greater detail. The Bill's defects do not detract from the importance of enacting it as soon as possible, so we shall vote for it.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: During the statement by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I intervened to say that I was extremely pleased that he was taking measures in favour of responsible ownership of dogs. That was due to an unfortunate incident in my constituency—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) referred—when a family pet savaged a small child in Yardley Wood. It was not a pit bull terrier but a Staffordshire bull terrier, and it had never previously shown any signs of aggression. I therefore particularly welcome those clauses relating to responsible ownership and control of dogs.
I should like in particular to concur with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who criticised the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). The right hon. Gentleman's gratuitous attack on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was totally uncalled for and was the worst possible example of politics coming before principles. I should particularly like to quote the right hon. Gentleman's comments on rottweilers on 22 May 1991, when he asked:
Why are rottweilers not to be included in the prohibited category?
It seems from the right hon. Gentleman's comments today that he has changed his position. Surely it is therefore extremely hypocritical of the right hon. Gentleman to criticise my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has consulted widely and moved totally in keeping with his remarks on 22 May, when he said:
If dogs can be made safe by neutering, I shall he prepared to consider it."—[Official Report. 22 May 1991; Vol. 191, c. 946–49.]
That is exactly what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has done—he has considered the matter and acted upon it. The criticism by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and certain elements of the press is not only distasteful but, in the opinion of my constituents, uncalled for.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) pinpointed the fact that clause 3 may be the most lasting contribution on the issue. It is extremely important in terms of controlling dogs that are dangerously out of control in a public place. I differ, however, with the hon. Gentleman and with my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North in that I believe that that has nothing to do with registration.
There are tower blocks in my constituency where dogs roam around untended and make it extremely difficult to get into those flats. Registration would make no difference to that; the only thing that would make a difference—if my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary considered it necessary or if local authorities believed it necessary in the future—would be measures to ensure that all dogs in public places, not designated as parks, were kept on a lead. That would make those areas safe. It would be the answer to the complaints by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin)—it would refer equally to his tenement blocks and to my tower blocks. A registration scheme would have no effect on those dogs.
I have had great pleasure in owning as a family pet a bulldog—a breed which some people may consider to have been dangerous in the past and which was originally bred for fighting. I am therefore well aware of the care and attention that is necessary if one owns such a breed. I paid

great attention to ensuring that that dog was on a lead whenever I was in a public place, not because I thought that the dog would attack anybody—I knew that it was perfectly friendly—but because I was worried that other people might be frightened by its appearance. I knew that if it was kept on a lead it could not cause anybody else any inconvenience or distress. That is my response to the particular comments by the hon. Member for Springburn.
References to puppy farming are somewhat irrelevant to this debate. The real problems of pit bull terriers and the dangerous dogs that have been responsible for the attacks have nothing to do with puppy farming. It is unfortunate that some dogs have had certain characteristics repeatedly bred into their strain. They include pit bull terriers, tosas, alsatians, rottweilers and dobermans. Some dogs are bred specifically, using an aggressive dog and an aggressive bitch, to produce a more aggressive animal. It is to those dogs that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has correctly addressed the Bill. Unfortunately, there will always be instances of the family pet—or somebody else's family pet—deciding, for no apparent reason, to sink his teeth into some poor—

Mr. Tony Banks: Unsuspecting Tory candidate.

Mr. Hargreaves: Let us just say, into some poor, unsuspecting passerby.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and other hon. Members have expressed the view that certain types of dog are as dangerous as a loaded firearm, saying, "We need a certificate and to be registered to own a firearm." I have often ridden or been in close proximity to horses that I would describe as being every bit as dangerous as the breeds of dog to which we have referred tonight. The House is not, however, talking about establishing a registration system for horses. I have known people whose faces have been dreadfully disfigured by horses bucking or kicking and being out of control in a public place. People have even been killed by horses, but we are not talking about every type of horse being registered. That is because registration cannot make any difference to an animal's behaviour. Responsible ownership—from the horse rider or the dog owner—is what really counts.
I believe that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) who suggested that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should reconsider the question of minors being in control of certain dogs in public places. The same could be said about horses. Any animal that is out of control poses a potential danger, not only to itself but to people. It is a potential accident spot. Any animal in a public place that is controlled solely by a minor must also fall within that category.
I am certain that my right hon. Friend will wish further to consider those points. As we have been asked to be brief, I shall draw my remarks to a close by saying that I wholeheartedly support the Bill and urge my right hon. Friend not to allow this issue to be clouded by talk of a registration scheme.

Mr. John McAllion: When he opened this debate, the Home Secretary would have had the House believe that the Government have acted decisively and swiftly over the problem of trying to control dangerous dogs. That is also what we were told on the afternoon of the savage attack on young Rucksana Khan.


We heard that the Home Secretary had been on the telephone to the Prime Minister to demand urgent action to control dangerous dogs. He is reported to have told the Prime Minister, "We cannot wait. There must be a Bill this Session". He might have added, "We are taking a right mauling in the tabloid press in a possible general election year and must be seen to be doing something."
I do not know whether that is what happened, but I know that more than two years ago my constituent, Kellie Lynch, was killed in a savage attack by two rottweilers. Ever since, her parents, Veronica and John Lynch, have campaigned courageously and ceaselessly to try to get the Government to take some action to prevent what happened to their daughter from happening to anyone else's children. I also know that their campaign has been ignored and dismissed by the Government and their Ministers, at least one of whom showed what could only be described "measured contempt" when dealing with those parents' legitimate demands.
I well remember the Adjournment debate in which I participated almost exactly two years ago and the comments of the Minister, who said that banning or prohibiting particular breeds of dog was "manifest nonsense", "rubbish", "unsustainable" and "an absurdity". He added that a ban or prohibition on American pit bull terriers
cannot operate because it is nonsense if one focuses on breeds … it is impossible to prohibit possession and importation by way of breed,"—[Official Report, 15 June 1989; Vol. 154, c.1200.]
What was impossible then has suddenly become all too possible now.

Mr. Tony Banks: Who was the Minister?

Mr. McAllion: It was the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who is now at the Foreign Office.
Clause 1 not only prohibits the possession of fighting dogs and bans their breeding and sale, but specifies the dogs by breed in the statute. That is the very thing that the Government told us was nonsensical rubbish only a short time ago. Anyone who does not accept that argument need only read clause 1(1)(a), which refers to
any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier",
or clause 1(1)(b), which refers to
any dog of the type known as the Japanese tosa".
The Home Secretary has admitted that there are problems when trying to define dogs by breed and has promised that he will issue guidelines on identification to dog wardens and police. The Bill uses the more general description of "pit bull terrier" rather than the more specific breeding term of "American pit bull terrier". However, whichever way he dodges and weaves, the right hon. Gentleman cannot escape from the reality, which is that he is now doing exactly what the Government said only two years ago could not be done.

Mr. Tony Banks: The whole House will acknowledge the foresight that was displayed by my hon. Friend in his Adjournment debate, to which I listened, and will remember the comments made by the then Minister, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who I understand is now probably on his way back from Beirut, having been recalled. Does my hon. Friend agree that, having said what he did to him, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham deserved to be sent to Beirut, and

is not it outrageous that he is now being called back from Beirut to vote in favour of something that he previously opposed?

Mr. MacAllion: My hon. Friend is correct. I am sure that taxpayers will be interested to know that the Government are spending thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money to bring back a Minister to Westminster to vote for a Bill that he considers to be rubbish.
Why has there been such a dramatic change in the Government's position? Could it be that in the aftermath of the horrific attack on young Rucksana Khan the Government suddenly realised that they were faced with a breed of dog that posed a threat that has been described by the Home Secretary as one of a different degree of seriousness from that presented to them hitherto? Has there been a sudden awakening on the part of those who occupy the Government Benches to the threat that is posed by the American pit bull terrier? I think not.
First, the Government were well warned—I played my part in the Adjournment debate to which I referred—that American pit bull terriers posed a serious threat to public safety in the United Kingdom. The Government knew at least two years ago that the breed had killed and killed again in the United States. They knew then that the Kennel Club had advised its members not to deal with and not to own examples of the breed. The Government knew that American pit bull terriers were bred to encourage fighting characteristics, to bring down even a horse and not to let go of the victim until they had killed it. They knew all that at least two years ago, but they chose to ignore the facts and to dismiss calls for bans and prohibitions to be placed on the breed.
The attack on young Rucksana Khan cannot be said to have come as a surprise to the Government. They knew well the potential of American pit bull terriers, and they cannot explain their sudden shift in attitude towards the ban that is set out in the Bill. It is not credible for Ministers to argue that the sheer ferocity of attacks in recent times has convinced them of the need to change their policy. No more ferocious attack has taken place in this country than that which occurred in my constituency more than two years ago. If there is a need for urgency and speed now, why was not there a similar move two years ago when my constituent was attacked?

Mr. Bill Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it may have been in part because of his persuasive approach and the fact that he has applied himself assiduously to trying to deal with the problem—we all respect him for that—that the Government have introduced the Bill? Perhaps he should regard the introduction of the Bill as in part an achievement for himself.

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman entirely misunderstands the argument which I have advanced. The most persuasive arguments were presented by Mr. and Mrs. John Lynch, who made forceful representations for more than two years that action should be taken. It is unfortunate that they were ignored by Ministers.
Why has there been a change in the Government's attitude and why have they introduced the Bill? It is my judgment that the Bill reflects the relative strength of the Government two years ago and the relative weakness of their position today. Two years ago, the then Prime


Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), was celebrating 10 years in office. The talk then was of 10 more years of Conservative Government. Two years ago, the poll tax had not even hit Scotland, never mind England and Wales. At that time the deep divisions within the Tory party over Europe had not really come to the surface. If I might borrow a phrase that was coined by another, two years ago the Government thought themselves to be unassailable.
In their arrogance, the Government dismissed demands for more controls to be placed on dangerous dogs. They did not think that the demands were worth bothering about. They used the opportunities that were presented by debates on the control of dangerous dogs to mock those of us who called for stricter legislation. They did not bother to listen to us. It is a different story now. Ministers have left the Government by the barrowload, including the former Prime Minister. The Government are trailing in the opinion polls and they have had first to postpone a June general election and then an October election because they knew that they would not be able to win either.
The Government are politically weak and they are vulnerable. It is from their position of weakness that they have been bounced into introducing the Bill because of the pressure mounted by the tabloid newspapers. In short, the Bill represents the Government's panic reaction. It will be pushed through the House in one day not because the Government are legislating for a real emergency in the real world but because they, a weak Administration, cannot guarantee the unequivocal support of Conservative Back-Benchers. That being so, they want to push through the Bill in one day, with the minimum of damage to themselves.
By any reasonable definition, the Bill is not good enough. It includes no provision for a national dog registration scheme. It does not provide for an adequate licence fee to fund appropriate wardens' schemes throughout the country. It ducks the issues of ownership of the breeds that it defines as presenting a serious danger to the public. Anyone will still be able to own any of the dogs in any sort of home environment once the Bill is on the statute book. The Bill does not seek to deal with back-street breeders who wish to sell especially dangerous dogs to all and sundry, including those who cannot possibly be considered as responsible owners. The Bill includes no provisions to bear on dangerous dogs that are used for criminal purposes, especially drug dealing.
However, a number of amendments and new clauses have been tabled and if they are carried, they will strengthen the Bill considerably. That being so, I shall support the Bill's Second Reading. I do so because it recognises that some breeds of dog cannot be classified as domestic pets, but should be banned in this country. I do so because it recognises other breeds of dogs that present a serious danger to the public and that require special measures to control them.
The Bill does not go anywhere near far enough, but in time that will come just as, in time, the Government will go and will be replaced by a Government who will treat the problem with the seriousness it deserves.

Mr. Roger King: I listened to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) with a great deal of interest. He has a message for the House, but it was a pity that it was obscured by so much of what one might call politicking in criticising the Government and their reaction to a problem which has grown over the past few years.
No Government can instantly introduce laws until they are absolutely convinced that they are necessary for the well-being of the people. Creating new measures on the spur of the moment does not make for good law. This Bill is a result of a year or two's reflection on a concern which has grown in importance over that period.
I support the Bill, although I preferred my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's earlier proposal for, if one can use the word, a cull of pit bull terriers. That would have received widespread support. The newspapers, if one goes by what they said, were generally in favour of that treatment for that breed of dog. It cannot be considered a pet in any conceivable way. However, I accept that my right hon. Friend has reflected at length and that he has taken opinion from various sources and has therefore decided not to embark on such an extreme measure.
There are points that I should like clarified. The proposed treatment for pit bull terriers when they appear in a public place is to be welcomed. They will be muzzled and kept on a lead. That does not mean that they need to be muzzled in the home and that is my main fear. If such dogs are bred for violence—I do not think that anybody would dispute that—they are liable to turn on people. What are we doing to protect people in the households in which those dogs live? What would happen if the dogs were allowed into the garden and escaped? They would still be a danger if they got out. I am not sure that there are any proposals in the Bill that require owners to ensure that their gardens are secure if they keep such a dog at home. I should welcome further thoughts on that matter.
The definition of a public place, as in clause 3, is always notoriously difficult to devise. I remember that in the Road Traffic Bill, the law was changed to make dangerous driving an offence either on the public highway or in a public place. However, when it came to the definition of a public place, one could not be sure what was meant. I discovered that if the effects of the Bill had been carried through logically, it would have banned all international car rallying events through Forestry Commission roads. They are a public place by virtue of the fact that the public has access to them.
Although we tend to think of a public place as a recreation ground or a local authority park, what would happen if the owners of the dogs took them into the countryside, far away from what the owners considered to be a public place, and allow them to roam over fields? They are also public places because the public has access to them through the public's rights of way. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have to consider carefully whether a public place should include everywhere outside the domestic home so that there would be no doubt at all. To define "public place" in legal terms is very difficult indeed.
Reference has been made to the possible introduction of a dog registration scheme—something which we shall discuss in Committee. I am opposed to such a scheme because I cannot envisage its working effectively. In my


constituency, I see rows upon rows of cars with out-of-date vehicle excise licences. There are also many people who do not have television licences. A great deal of time and energy are spent on the collection of television licence fees. The point is that if someone taxes his car, that does not mean that that car has been adequately maintained. If a dog registration scheme were introduced, that would not mean that the owner would look after his dog and ensure that it did not misbehave in a public place, whatever we mean by that.
There would also be enormous problems in policing such a scheme. The sort of people who do not have vehicle excise licences or television licences are the very people who would not go to the time and trouble of applying for a dog registration licence. If such a person decided that he no longer wanted his dog, he would simply remove the tag from around its neck and throw the dog out of the house or drive it into the countryside and release it.
The Bill will re-emphasise to the public that having a dog means taking responsibility for that dog's life. The Bill goes some considerable way towards warning people that it is a commitment that must not be taken lightly. The law can go only so far; it is for each owner to exercise his responsibility for the conduct of his dog.
I shall support the Bill because it goes a long way towards ensuring that there is greater accountability for the ownership and control of dogs.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) that dogs and shotguns were equally dangerous. That was a considerable insult to shotguns. We can leave down a loaded gun, and it will not do anybody any harm. It can stay there for 100 years, and unless some fool or madman starts shooting people with it, it will do no one any harm.
The dogs with which the Bill is designed to deal are a different proposition because they have, at best, addled brains. They are highly mobile, very strong, and move of their own volition to attack anyone or anyting that comes within their vision. The hon. Member who referred to those shotguns should also have mentioned the ill-considered Firearms (Amendment) Bill, which was introduced shortly after the Hungerford massacre. That was another piece of legislation introduced in panic. It was ill-considered and it has achieved nothing.

Mr. Frank Cook: That Bill was also guillotined.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman was the Labour Whip on the Committee that considered that Bill. He will recall the long arguments in Committee and the wisdom that emerged as a result of them. The Government learned a lesson with that Bill, which is why this Bill is being rushed through in one day. There will be no time for rational discussion of the issues. It is ridiculous that such a serious matter should be dealt with in that way.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) made a powerful speech. A child in his constituency was killed two years ago. There should have been a great deal of consideration during those two years, but there was not. That is proof positive that this is a rushed Bill, introduced in panic and designed to do only a little good. A great deal of will be felt by the law-abiding owners of the dogs that come within the scope of the Bill.
If I may be sarcastic, it seems to me that we are faced with the Bill because of Government dogma. They are unwilling to consider a dog licensing scheme. As we are all well aware, one part of the United Kingdom has a comprehensive dog licensing scheme under the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983—Northern Ireland. Despite the Government's views, which were expressed when we last discussed the problem of dogs, that scheme has considerable support in Northern Ireland from those who deal with the licensing of dogs. It is one of the most welcome measures for Northern Ireland that the House has passed for many years.
Frankly, the dog licensing scheme in Northern Ireland works as well as the councils that are operating it make it work. It does not cost much money, except in places where it is not properly operated. One of the councils in my area, Coleraine, manages to make the scheme pay for itself. Ballymena council charges £5 a dog, and made a profit on one year.
No one would say that the scheme is perfect, but it has largely dealt with the evils for which it was intended, principally sheep worrying. Although in Northern Ireland the number of sheep has multiplied by three since the scheme came into operation, the number of sheep-worrying incidents has decreased. In my own council, Limavady, which had a large number of sheep-worrying incidents, there was only one incident last year and none the previous two or three years. That is a measure of the success of the scheme and of its capacity to control stray dogs, so it does work.
Although councils vary in their efficiency, in the amount of manpower they require and in the cost of the scheme, it is broadly a success. If the courts in Northern Ireland were more helpful by giving the penalties that the law allows, the scheme would be even more successful.
I do not want to take up too much time, because my points apply to Northern Ireland, but if the Government had simply reprinted that legislation with a few necessary amendments, they would have had a much better Bill. I never know how amendements are chosen for discussion in Committee, but my amendment was unfortunately not selected. If the Government had accepted my sensible amendment, and not extended the Bill to Northern Ireland—that flies in the face of the normal view of the Unionist party—but amended the Northern Ireland legislation, we would have been even further ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom.
My suggestions were quite simple. A person who did not hold, for the period of the dog's licence, insurance to cover any damage done by the dog should not be granted the licence. The Government believe in the market, so surely they should have no problem in accepting such a simply amendment or writing it into the Bill. If they did so, the dachshund, which is a small dog, would be in group 1—to use a motoring analogy—and the pit bull terrier would be in group 20. Not many people would be willing to pay the insurance costs. If they were, we might have to ask why they were prepared to do so.
I am essentially a farmer, and I believe that if a dog does not earn its keep, the owner should not keep it. I appreciate that people like to have dogs as pets; we have had pet dogs in my home. However, I stand by that principle: if a dog does not earn its keep, do not keep it. People who keep a dog should expect it to earn its keep if it is carrying a high level of insurance.
The second small change that I should like to see is for the district council—which is the licensing authority in Northern Ireland—to have the power to grant or to refuse a licence. If that power were exercised wisely and well, it would deal with the problem once and for all, because the council could react to local pressure. That would also cover the problem raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) in respect of high-rise flats. A council could exercise control in that regard as well. If we had followed that route, we would be in a much happier situation than we are this evening.
I hope that the Bill will prove to be purely temporary and that the United Kingdom will eventually catch up with the existing practice in Northern Ireland. I had hoped that I could improve on the legislation, but sadly that has not proved possible. However, hope springs eternal in the human breast, even in regard to dog registration, so with a wee bit of luck, we will be back here in another year or two, whoever may be in government, when we will perhaps have wiser counsels and better legislation.

Mr. John Bowis: I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), and particularly to his remarks about insuring dogs according to their breed and to where they live. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) rightly highlighted the importance of clause 3 and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) emphasised the importance of enforcing tenancy rules. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will give great consideration in her response to the points made by hon. Members in all parts of the House about common parts, which may include estate roads, and the corridors and stairwells of high-rise blocks such as those in my constituency.
Almost every hon. Member who owns a dog has confessed to it. I almost feel that we should extend the Register of Members' Interests to our pets. I admit to the ownership of a border terrier and shall watch with great interest the progress of the Bill tonight. Most of us in this country are dog lovers, although I detect the odd shake of the head from members of the Opposition Front Bench. I record also my interest in Battersea dogs home, which does so much for the welfare of strays and of dogs that have been ill-treated or abused by their owners.
I believe that right hon. and hon. Members faithfully represent the broad balance of views held by their constituents. That ranges from the school of thought that dogs can do no wrong to that referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), which can be described as the incinerator tendency—those who exhibit real hostility towards dogs. In between, there are those who are irritated by dog fouling and concerned about the health risks that it creates, as well as the risk posed by dogs wandering the streets out of control. They are concerned also about the dangers that are created when dogs are kept in the wrong types of places.
I understand entirely when people get a large dog to protect themselves, but when they bring such an animal home to their high-rise flat and then allow it to run wild in

the corridors, or allow it to become a latchkey dog, such people contribute to neurosis in a dog, which can lead to the dangers that concern us tonight.
There are also killer dogs. The Bill is concerned particularly with measures to control fighting dogs that are sadly and too frequently the killers not just of other dogs but of people. All dogs can be dangerous, and some often are. One or two breeds—the number may be higher—are not only trained but bred to be dangerous. The Bill goes the right way about dealing with those bred for that purpose—they are not the sort of dogs that should be kept as pets.
I have been involved in a number of animal issues in the House—none more important than the measures taken to stop dog fighting. When one prevents dog fighting one is conscious that the dogs may go somewhere else, and if they go into family ownership or are bred from they can contribute to the problems that we face.
Just about every animal welfare organisation agrees that fighting dogs should not be pets. They can turn into aggressive killers without warning—we have seen too many examples of that. It is right to phase them out, but it is also right to take the lesser option and deal with them by muzzling, by neutering and through the exemption and registration introduced in the Bill.
I wish my right hon. and hon. Friends—and, indeed, the lawyers of this country—well in seeking to define the breeds and types of dog covered by the Bill. No doubt they will be able to do it. I especially welcome the insurance measures.
I emphasise that, in taking the lesser step, we must also take the responsibility for doing so. If there should be a tragedy with an exempted dog it will be no good our turning round and saying that it is the Government's fault, that something more should have been done. We are advising the Government that we want the lesser step to be taken; I think that we are right to do so, but we must acknowledge that we are also taking the responsibility for that step.
The Bill also deals with other types of dog. Other breeds can be dangerous—sometimes because of overbreeding or inbreeding, sometimes because of their ownership. The insurance route is the right way forward, because the actuarial calculations will be made by insurance companies. If they deem somebody not to be a fit and proper person to own or control a dog, or if they consider somebody's home not to be a fit and proper place for that dog to live, they will either refuse insurance cover or make it so expensive that it will be almost impossible for the person in question to take out insurance.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary included insurance as an element in the list of requirements that he will introduce by regulation—with which I entirely concur. But I did not hear him say that there would be marking of the dog, a collar tag or something similar so that the public, the police and other authorities could easily see that insurance had been taken out. That is an important consideration and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will deal with it when she replies to the debate.
The debate will soon move on to the question of registration schemes. I make no secret of the fact that I have always supported registration schemes. Indeed, in the days when such things were possible, my first revolt in the House, when I went into the other Lobby, was when I supported the measure to retain dog licences. I favoured registration for two reasons. The first was that registration


serves a purpose in rescuing strays. I still believe that. Battersea dogs home runs a voluntary scheme whereby a chip is implanted in the scruff of the dog's neck, giving a unique number that can be screened in police stations to identify the dog's owner. Perhaps we could encourage that practice through voluntary schemes.
The other consideration is owner control—the control of owners who act irresponsibly in charge of dogs. On that matter, I believe that we are heading in the right direction. Whatever we like to call it, we are heading down the route of compulsory insurance for dogs. We are starting with fighting dogs, but I believe that we will continue with dangerous dogs and then it will be a short step before we bring it in for other dogs.
All dogs can be dangerous and some often are. We are going for the "often-are's" and shortly I believe that the Government will be persuaded to go for the "also-can-be's". Before we get there, we will have achieved precisely that responsible dog ownership that we are seeking, through the insurance route, which will be in the best interests of dogs and their owners.
I support the Bill and I urge that we eventually extend the insurance requirement, because this nation can be judged by the way in which it deals with its pets, especially dogs. The Bill will be good for people and good for dogs, and I commend it.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I shall be brief. When the debates on the Bill started today, I had no intention of voting in the No Lobby against the timetable. However, I have heard a number of speeches, one or two of which certainly lacked clarity, in which preposterous comments were made. However, because of the lack of clarity, I cannot ascertain exactly what was said until Hansard appears and it will not appear until after the Bill has completed its passage.
That problem was again demonstrated during the Home Secretary's speech, when he appeared to select brindle Staffordshire bull terriers for attention. Perhaps the Home Secretary is not aware that there are a variety of colours within that breed and that his comments will cause some anxiety among those who fancy pedigree dogs, especially Staffordshire bull terriers, because he appeared to like brindle Staffordshire bull terriers but not others. It is rather sad that in a matter that affects the burning interests of many thousands of people—the Staffordshire bull terrier is one of the most popular breeds in Britain—the Home Secretary's lack of preparedness should cause him to give anxiety.
Because of the atmosphere of rush and panic, a number of hon. Members who are interested in dogs are increasingly concerned. After all, the Home Secretary criticised a Labour Government for not banning American pit bull terriers in the 1970s. However, at that time it was only surmised that they would be coming here to be used for fighting, which did not develop until the early 1980s. As I said in an intervention on the Leader of the House, I asked the Government to ban the import of American pit bull terriers in the early 1980s, because evidence was clearly available to show that they were being used for the very sordid practice of dog fighting, to which a number of hon. Members have referred.
The Government refused and I urged them that if they were not prepared to ban the import of American pit bull

terriers, they should at least have the decency to assist animal welfare organisations, especially those that have an investigative role such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, by informing them of the names and addresses of people who were importing the dogs. Make no mistake, people who were importing American pit bull terriers at the beginning and in the middle of the 1980s were almost invariably serving dog fighting.
Once again the Government refused because that clashed with their philosophy, which is to sweep away regulations and leave everything to the individual, to the free market, to freedom and liberty. The result of that careless, lackadaisical and utterly irresponsible approach is the panic stations represented by a Bill of this type.
I do not want to take a long time but one or two matters need to be mentioned. I would be grateful if the Minister of State would first clarify the issue that I mentioned regarding Staffordshire bull terriers before people start having them neutered all around the country. Secondly, there is the question of clause 4. It is already unsatisfactory that people who are not fit to have dogs, who abuse them and are found guilty of relevant offences in court may not be banned from keeping a dog. That is provided by clause 4.
However, sometimes other people in the same household should be banned from keeping a dog. When the police arrive at the home of the chap who has obtained a pit bull terrier for unsavoury reasons, he will say that it is his wife's, his partner's, his son's or his mother or father's. They will be banned from keeping a dog, but he will not. There has been too much of such evasion, so we must ensure that the verdict of the court is accompanied by bans that mean something and by a household ban where necessary.
The Government have been foolish in saying that the Bill will not come into effect until 30 November. I estimate that a significant proportion of at least 45 per cent. of pit bull terrier bitches in Britain—that is 45 per cent. of the total, as bitches come into season twice a year—wilt be mated within the next two or three months to produce litters suitably matched to dogs of other breeds. That will allow people who practice this so-called sport of fighting to evade the requirement in the Bill.
Banning pit bull terriers will be of little use if cross-breeds from American pit bull terriers are to be used. The Government are giving the dog-fighting fraternity the latitude offered by the time arrangements of the Bill. That is another example of the incompetence and stupidity with which they have handled the matter in the past decade.

Miss Emma Nicholson: We all know how much people in the United Kingdom love pets. Nowhere is the British love of animals more demonstrated that in our continuing affection for dogs and cats.
It is a correct belief that dogs and cats are good for us—people in hospital who have pets with them are known to recover more quickly, their blood pressure lowers, they are happier and calmer and they recover more quickly. We are all aware of the quiet companionship that a pet offers someone who lives alone. A mentally handicapped child is


stimulated and made happier by a pet. Someone who is dying is made happier by the company of an animal. We are right to love our pets and they repay us a thousandfold.
Most people look after their pets—often better than they look after themselves—and give them the finest food. I have often thought that pearls before swine was surely the description of an early porcine hors d'oeuvre. Cats dine delicately on boneless salmon, while their owners masticate on mackerel.
But there is another breed of people who seek and obtain another kind of household animal—one bred not to divert but to destroy and not to defend but to go to war. The owners are at fault, but so often their animals must suffer.
The Bill is necessary, but I am sad that we must have a Bill to control household pets. It is a great dishonour on ourselves as human beings that we are not able to choose and care for animals that are good for society rather than a negative element. Yet in my constituency and in many other parts of the United Kingdom, owners have chosen and breed dogs to hurt their neighbours. I have a folder full of such examples just from my constituency.
Where I differ with the Opposition, who have expressed similar concern for animals, is over their grave disservice to the House of suggesting that a register is the perfect way forward. Surely, we do not want unnecessary bureaucracy. A national registration scheme would have to cater for 7 million dogs and would cost about £42 million a year, financed by fees. In Belfast, fewer than 50 per cent. of owners have complied with such a scheme.
There is a concept known as risks management which involves the identification of risks. Are we to go overboard and pretend that there are risks related to dogs? Could not the £42 million be better spent on children, the elderly, the handicapped and the sick? In our love for animals and our overwhelming desire for animals to be well cared for, let us not be too silly. We should consider that people matter, too.
The national budget is, of necessity, finite. The register, such as it is, must be kept to the minimum so that it costs the minimum to maintain and obtains maximum compliance from owners. I support the Bill.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I hope that the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and the House will forgive me if I do not comment on all that has been said, but I lack the time to do so.
Opposition Members tried to castigate us for—[HON. MEMBERS: "Government Members."] I am sorry, I meant Government Members—I was anticipating events.
Government Members complained that we criticised the Home Secretary for listening and responding. We were doing nothing of the kind, but were saying that it was a pity that he did not do so before he spoke on 22 May. Our complaint was that he spoke first and thought afterwards. The problem with the Home Secretary is that he is never there when the consequences of what he has planned come about. We fear that his rush to legislate will leave problems for his successor.
The Home Secretary himself mentioned the Sunday People, so instead of making up what Mr. Mandelson said

yesterday, I shall reflect on what the Home Secretary said. In 1981, when he was a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, the Home Secretary regaled the House with the promise that the country would be cabled by 1990. To give him credit, he was the first Minister to see the promise, potential and need for the most modern communication system. It was not introduced, but by then he had gone.
The right hon. Gentleman then went to the Department of the Environment, where he is credited with persuading the then Prime Minister that the poll tax was the best replacement for the rates—that was also mentioned in the Sunday People. We all know where that expensive farce ended, but no matter, the right hon. Gentleman had yet again vanished.
The right hon. Gentleman reappeared as Secretary of State for Education and Science to lay the groundwork for what as laughingly known as educational reform, but by the time its consequences hit classroom and teachers, he had vanished. He had legged it to become chairman of the Conservative party. We all remember his clarion call at last year's Conservative party conference:
Let him who has no stomach for the fight depart.
The Chancellor, the deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House all did so and then, lo and behold, the Prime Minister herself did.
As Robert Harris said in yesterday's Sunday Times:
after talking tough about pit hull terriers for a week or two, our Kenneth has suddenly dropped his bag of toffees and is sprinting for the schoolyard gate as fast as his little legs will carry him. 'It's typical of Ken,' one Tory MP was quoted as saying last week, 'he never finishes anything he starts.
That is the right hon. Gentleman's track record; now let us consider his record in relation to dogs. When we consider the brilliant record that the right hon. Gentleman brings with him to the Bill, how can we have any confidence that the Home Secretary, in his latest and perhaps his last Government job, has it right now?
As late as last October, the Government were telling us that nothing more needed to be done in relation to dog control, and that we certainly did not need a national dog registration scheme. They said that the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, which made it an offence to have an unmuzzled, ferocious dog at large in a street, park or open public place was enough to deal with the problem, as the figures showed.
There were 80 prosecutions in 1988, of which 43 succeeded. That shows that the 1847 Act did not quite solve the problem, but a year later there were 93 prosecutions, of which 60 succeeded. Therefore, as the Government then argued, the 1847 Act provided the solution to the problem, and they said that if that did not work there was always the Animals Act 1971, which allows prosecution for injury or damage caused by dogs in England and Wales. I should like to be able to tell the House how that worked out, but I cannot, because the Home Office does not collect information centrally on those civil offences.
A month ago, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister claimed that all was well and that there was no need for a change in the law. That song has been sung from the Dispatch Box for at least the past two years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) reminded the House tonight, the then Home Office Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and derided a call by my hon. Friend that specific action should be taken against American pit bull terriers. The Minister asked:


When does an American pit bull terrier cease to be an American pit bull terrier? A dog with one American pit bull terrier parent is partly an American pit bull terrier. However, would it fit that definition for the purposes of prohibition orders?"—[Official Report, 15 June 1989; Vol. 155, c. 1188.]
That is why we have so little faith in the Home Secretary who is panicking legislation through the House tonight.
Then things changed—

Mr. Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Corbett: No.
Then things changed. Clark Kent, also known as the Prime Minister, decided that there was enough public concern for him to be decisive and to take action. On 21 May, he signalled from the Dispatch Box that stern action would be taken, at last, to control dogs. On 22 May, the Home Secretary announced from the Dispatch Box, "death to all pit bull terriers", and he was backed by the Prime Minister. As the days passed, the pit bull terrier that the Home Secretary mimicked on 22 May became the Pluto of today. He now says that the pit bull terriers need not die, but that the Government will try to price them into an early grave by making the charges for exemption certificates, neutering and registration as high as possible, with a minimum of £150 an animal. I know that the Home Secretary does not like to be reminded of the fact that he stood at the Dispatch Box on 22 May growling about putting down 10,000 pit bull terriers. Within days, he had changed his mind and backed away.
I hope that the Minister of State will, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) asked earlier, at least share with the House the process by which it was decided not to include rottweilers in the special categories. It is estimated that there are 10,000 pit bull terriers in the country compared with 100,000 rottweilers, 100,000 doberman pinschers, 100,000 Staffordshire bull terriers and about 250,000 German shepherd dogs. Will the Minister share with the House the details of the decision-making that enables the Home Secretary and his advisers to make a distinction between a dog that is born for fighting and a dog that is bred for aggressiveness? The Home Secretary has not persuaded the House about that distinction. There is virtually no distinction between bred for fighting and bred for aggressiveness.
I want to echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and others, with which the Home Secretary had some sympathy when he was kind enough to allow an intervention from me. My hon. Friend referred to dangerous dogs in tower blocks, in maisonettes and in back gardens—in other words, not in what one would normally understand to be public places.
The Post Office has told me of a 56-year-old woman whose right ear was torn off when three Alsatians attacked her in the driveway of a private house. She suffered other bites to the head, arms and legs, and underwent emergency surgery. Under the Bill, such an incident would not be caught under the definition of public places.
In my constituency, there are several families whose lives, children and cats are terrorised by a rottweiler living down the road which constantly leaps over—[Laughter.] That is no laughing matter. It leaps over the garden fence and as recently as last weekend, a cat had to be attended

by a veterinarian and there was an £80 bill[Laughter] Is that a laughing matter? I hope that Hansard will record those who are laughing.
Can the Minister assure the House that when the police seek a warrant under the powers in clause 3, they will be able to call on the services of RSPCA inspectors and of trained and equipped dog wardens or veterinarians? It cannot be expectable to accept an ordinary beat police officer to attend to a dangerous dog in answer to a summons. Even police officers who have been trained in dog handling are not experienced in handling dangerous dogs that are out of control.
When the Minister of State replies, I hope that she will confirm that the Government will consider seriously the proposition in new clause 3 that people who are injured by dangerous dogs whose owners cannot be traced or identified should be able to make a claim for damages to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. The Minister of State will be aware that that issue has gone to judicial review because the board has claimed that it does not have such powers at the moment.
Will the Minister of State also confirm that no genetic test is available at the moment to determine absolutely the make-up of a dog? I am advised that it will take up to eight years to produce such a test. How will those people responsible for making decisions about the exemptions reach their conclusions?
It is regrettable that this debate has not been-about encouraging responsible dog ownership. The vast majority of people who own dogs are responsible and accept the obligations of such ownership to ensure the enforceable control that a modern society requires. The Bill goes some way towards that and that is why we shall support it. However, it will take a Labour Government to do the job properly.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): Apart from the last rather deplorable contribution of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), we have had a helpful and positive debate this evening. In the time available, I will do my best to respond to the many points that have been made.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) for his contribution. I differ from his views in one respect. We believe that the Bill relates to pit bull terriers and those dangerous dogs that are bred for fighting and that cannot at any stage be considered to be safe irrespective of whether they have been friendly in the past.
We are grateful for the support of my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King). My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield had reservations about the Bill as he wanted a cull of dogs. Had we had such a cull of dogs, I suspect that the press would have created much fuss and there would have been many clarion calls and all sorts of things written about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Battersea dogs home is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), and we welcome his support for the Bill. I will respond to his point about the common parts of flats and stairways, and we shall be including either tattooing or tagging.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) made helpful points about the costs of a registration scheme. We were also grateful for the helpful and supportive comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and for the remarks of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). I confirm that we are engaged in consultations with the Association of British Insurers about the form of insurance that we will introduce.
I know that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) is concerned about the Lynch family. As a good constituency Member, he has supported that family for some years since the sad death of Kelly Lynch. I understand his points and extend my sympathy to Kelly's parents. I hope that the Bill and the hon. Gentleman's support of it will go some way towards rewarding his constant work for those parents.
In response to the hon. Member for Londonderry, (Mr. Ross), I can state that we have considered the Northern Ireland registration scheme. However, we note with interest that that scheme still commands only 50 per cent. support from the people of Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) need not worry about Staffordshire bull terriers. I shall refer to clause 4 in a moment. The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the date of the introduction of the Bill allowing puppies to be bred. As from 31 July, when the legislation will be on the statute book, it will be an offence for dogs to have puppies, and such puppies will be caught by all clauses of the Bill. [Interruption.] I refer not to all dogs, but to banned or dangerous dogs.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) wanted me to answer a number of points. If the right hon. Gentleman is interested in the response—

Mr. Hattersley: Will the Minister of State give way?

Mrs. Rumbold: I cannot give way, because I have other questions to answer.
On the support of veterinary associations, of course it is not for me to commit parliamentary support of organisations such as the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the British Veterinary Association and the RSPCA. However, I can tell the House that those bodies have welcomed the principle of the Bill to rid the country of pit bull terriers and fighting dogs and also the controls that my right hon. Friend is proposing to apply to exempted dogs—that is, neutering, permanent marking and compulsory insurance. All those matters have been supported.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the security of conditions in which pit bull terriers are kept. It is unnecessary to define or set out the security of conditions in which clause 1 dogs should be kept. The Bill does that. If a clause 1 dog were to escape, the owner would be subject to criminal proceedings. Anyone who risks his clause 1 dog escaping is courting the same severe penalties, including imprisonment. It is his responsibility to ensure that the dog is secure.
On the point about compulsory insurance, I have been asked whether it should be a requirement for all dogs to be covered by third party insurance. All dog owners are liable under the Animals Act 1971 for any damage that their pets

may cause. They are therefore recommended to protect themselves and their neighbours with third party insurance. Because of the particular risks that fighting dogs represent, we are requiring the owners of such dogs that have been exempted to prove that they are covered in that exemption.
A register will simply record that a dog exists. A certificate of exemption records that certain action has been taken over a pit bull terrier—that is, that the dog has been neutered, marked permanently and is covered by insurance. Those are very good safeguards.
I was grateful to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) because it was extremely supportive, particularly his affirmation that the Police Federation is completely behind my right hon. Friend's Bill. My hon. Friend asked about clause 4 dogs. There is no power in the Bill to include German shepherds in clause 1, as they are not fighting dogs. If there is a need to take action against other breeds of dogs, it will be under clause 2 where there are, quite properly, less restrictive controls. On my hon. Friend's point about strays, the term "stray" is used in section 149 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It is a common term which apparently requires no definition.
On his point about aggravated offences, and the police, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge asked whether there will be a problem in establishing whether an offence was aggravated. That should not be a problem, as clause 3(1) clearly defines that an aggravated offence is committed when a dog that is out of control causes injury. That should be a simple matter of evidence.
I appreciate the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge about the costs of having dogs destroyed. That is why clauses 4(4)(b) and 4(5) contain provisions to recover costs. That is by a well-tried drafting formula and we hope that it will be thoroughly effective.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) for his helpful and supportive points. He asked whether minors should be allowed to be in charge of clause 1 dogs. We are considering the conditions that should apply to certificates of exemption and we shall bear my hon. Friend's points in mind. We have already anticipated that point in clause 3(2), which places an onus on a dog owner to ensure that it is in the charge of a responsible person. I appreciate that my hon. Friend has other points on which the Government are not likely to be quite so helpful, but that debate will occur later.
The hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) referred to puppy farms. Home Office Ministers have always said that they support measures to end puppy farm abuses. I expect an announcement to be made shortly about the introduction of such a measure. I acknowledge, too, the other points made by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) referred to the definition of a public place. Clause 8(2) covers all places to which the public have unrestricted access. They include many common areas in and around tower blocks, as my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) mentioned. Therefore, the criminal offence in clause 3 does not apply to anything that happens in back gardens, which are private places.

It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to the Order this day.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Boswell.]

Further proceedings postponed, pursuant to the Order this day.

Dangerous Dogs Bill [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Dangerous Dogs Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of that Act. —Mr. Boswell.]

10 pm

Mr. Tony Banks: When I opposed the timetable motion, I made it clear that I supported the overall objectives of the Bill but that I very much deplored the way in which it was being rushed through the House. [Interruption.] It appears that we are in the midst of a convention of small order waiters. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are now under the guillotine. However, he has a perfect right to make a speech on the money resolution.

Mr. Banks: The more I listened to the Second Reading debate the more I realised that the House is making a grave error in rushing the Bill through. There are so many unanswered questions. I am certain that other unanswered questions will arise out of the money resolution.
The Secretary of State referred to the compensation for which the money resolution provides the wherewithal. It provides compensation for those owners of pit bull terriers and any other designated owners who have their dogs put down. I understand that it is £50—£25 for the cost of having the dog put down and £25 to compensate owners for the loss of the dog. Many dog owners would consider that £25 compensation was tantamount to an insult, given that they might very much love their dog but might not be able to afford—if they decided not to have their dog put down—all the other costs arising out of neutering, registration and the other matters to which the Secretary of State referred. Those matters and proposals are supported by all responsible dog owners, as well as by the Opposition and the animal welfare organisations.
The Secretary of State is prepared to provide compensation for those owners who decide to have their dogs put down and to give a small sum of money to those who thereby lose their dogs, but it is very cruel that he is not prepared to give anything to those who might wish to go along with the legislation, because they are responsible owners, but who are unable to afford all the veterinary and registration costs that are tied up with this legislation.
The Secretary of State is not encouraging responsible dog ownership. Those who are prepared to have their dogs put down and to take £25 do not, I believe, fall into the category of responsible dog owners. Responsible pit bull terrier owners will be those who are in the terrible dilemma of wanting to go along with the legislation but who cannot afford the various costs.
The Secretary of State must accept that this is retrospective legislation. When these people bought their pit bull terriers, none of the illegalities that will arise from 31 July onwards was on the statute book. Those people will be penalised. This is retrospective legislation. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State should reconsider this matter. We cannot do it now, but if we had had a proper Committee stage, these matters could have been thoroughly considered. Proper amendments could have been tabled in Committee. These issues could have been


raised, and perhaps we would have found out the costs involved. I do not know what the costs are. The Home Secretary does not know. I do not believe that anyone can accurately say how many pit bull terriers there are. However many there are, it will be difficult to find them because people will keep them behind doors, undetected, as long as possible. With a Committee stage, we could have found out about all those matters.
On the face of it, it seems that a large part of the costs will fall on responsible dog owners. They want to go along with the Bill's terms but cannot afford to do so. They will be given a cruel choice. I hope that, in responding to the debate on the money resolution, the Home Secretary will say that he will at least consider introducing—perhaps in another place—a scheme that allows an element of compensation to be paid to those responsible dog owners who want to go along with the legislation but, unfortunately, cannot afford to do so. Those owners will be left with the dilemma of either disobeying the law or having their animal put down.

Mr. Bill Walker: The explanatory and financial memorandum states:
expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Bill
shall
be paid out of money provided by Parliament.
I wish to speak on the money resolution because there will probably be changes to the Bill that bring costs on the taxpayer. I did not have an opportunity to speak on Second Reading, but I make no complaint about that because my points deal directly with the prospect of costs.
Twenty-odd years ago, my youngest daughter, who is a pretty and attractive girl, was on a camp site near the Wirral in Cheshire. She was attacked by a large, savage dog and sustained serious injuries. Thankfully, because of the skilled medical treatment which she received, today she is an attractive young lady. I assure the House that, at that time, my wife and I and other members of my family were very worried. To this day, I still remember with horror my feelings when taking her to hospital, because of her appalling condition.
I believed then, and I believe now, that registration and all the other provisions that may or may not emerge from the Bill would not have had any impact on those events. The dog was tethered on a long lead. My youngest daughter, like other members of the family, was fond of animals. Not realising the hazard and the horror, the child did what many children do and went towards the dog, which attacked her.
Some of the speeches made earlier, particularly on the Bill's financial implications, were pertinent to those circumstances. We want to ensure that we deal with the problem of dogs that have savaged and attacked people. The Bill in its present form deals substantially with that matter. It lays down a framework to deal with incidents of the kind that I described, which brought terrible horror to my family and me. I commend the Government for introducing the Bill.
On the money resolution, no one has mentioned in detail the fact that children may recover from physical injuries, but what of the mental injuries that may remain? At the time of that incident, my wife and I wanted to do

something. It cost money—that is the point that I wanted to make. Today, we have a large dog at home, which is the property of my youngest daughter. It has all the equipment that could do damage to people. However, we were determined, that our children should not be afraid of dogs because of our experience and that has involved certain costs.
We should be careful to ensure that the Government and the public purse do not end up accepting responsibility that really belongs to the owners of the dogs concerned. That is why an insurance scheme is probably the most important element of the Bill. I am sorry that I have detained the House, which probably wants to move on to other things, but we have listened—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the House—like myself—is concerned that this sounds more like a Second Reading speech than one on a money resolution.

Mr. Walker: But I am talking about money, Mr. Speaker, and about why I felt that it was important—

Mr. Speaker: The money resolution deals with compensation.

Mr. Walker: As I read it, Mr. Speaker, the money resolution refers to
the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of that Act.
I am quoting the Bill exactly, Mr. Speaker, because I am a simple chap and think that that wording could be open-ended. I am trying to warn the House: we do not want the public purse to have to pick up costs that properly and rightly are the responsiblity of the owners of the dogs that inflict the damage. It is vital that the House considers that point before moving on to the next stage.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall detain the House for only a moment but, as the House knows, I have spoken on many money resolutions and feel that this one is couched in rather broad terms. I should like the Minister to confirm that the money resolution would enable the Secretary of State to expend money on the introduction of a dog registration scheme if that is the way in which the Bill is subsequently amended, as I hope it will be.
It is estimated that the passage of the Bill would result in increased expenditure of £250,000—I think that that is rather a low estimate—and that the rest of the Bill will be self-financing because of the licensing scheme. However, the money resolution is broad enough to suggest that, if one or both of the new clauses is passed and a dog registration scheme established, a further money resolution will not be necessary. I draw the House's attention to the difficulties of not providing adequate time for considering the legislation. Previously, for example, even Home Office Ministers have found in Committee that the money resolutions that were passed earlier were insufficient.
Will the Minister also confirm that the money resolution will enable the Secretary of State to spend money on establishing an insurance scheme, which I believe is a vital component of the legislation? My information is that the insurance companies will be extremely reluctant to embark on any insurance scheme for pit bull terriers, which may be exempted from being put


down. The Government may have to investigate using public funds to promote such a scheme. Can the money resolution, as presently drafted, provide for that?
I very much hope that the House is not delayed for too long on the money resolution and that we can ensure that the dog registration scheme, which is a fundamental component of any system to ensure proper dog ownership and control, is passed and that the Secretary of State will have the necessary powers, through the money resolution and the Bill when it is enacted, to implement it.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Before the House passes the money resolution, it should be told how the figure of £0·25 million was arrived at. We are shortly to consider a new clause that would extend a dog registration scheme to all types of dog and the Government will undoubtedly argue that one of the main reasons why we cannot have such a scheme is that it would cost a certain amount of money. The Bill provides for a registration scheme for two breeds, and undoubtedly that will cost some money. I should like to know how much it is likely to cost and whether it is proposed that the cost will be recovered from registration fees.
We are told in the explanatory and financial memorandum that it is expected that the financial effects of the Bill will be recovered
from fees charged to those whose dogs are excepted.
We should be told how much the overall scheme is supposed to cost and how much is intended to be recovered by way of fees charged to those whose dogs are excepted, so that when we consider a general registration scheme we can re-examine the figures.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): The House has endorsed the principle of the Bill, and it is now being asked to will the means. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) asked me two specific questions, and the answer to both of them is yes. I think that that will save him from further concern.
I can tell my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) that the costs of the compensation and destruction provisions are likely to be within about £250,000. He will appreciate the difficulties of estimating total expenditure in an area where other costs may be involved later. I think that I have given the House the figure that he was hoping that I would put before it.
I have noted the experience of the daughter of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). I am glad to hear that she has entirely recovered from it and is an attractive young woman, and that she owns a dog. My hon. Friend's contribution restores our confidence that people can have unhappy experiences yet still enjoy the benefits of being a dog owner. I entirely agree with him that the insurance scheme that is referred to in the Bill will answer many of the problems that he had to face when his daughter suffered such an unfortunate accident.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) spoke with great passion about the problems that are faced by those who do not wish to have their dogs

destroyed and wish to retain them. We believe that some of the animal associations are willing to come to the assistance of those who may have to incur expenditure on neutering, for example. But the intentions that lie behind the Bill are clear and the dogs that are defined in clause I—pit bull terriers, the tosa dog of Japan and the bandog—are those that we do not wish to have remaining in our society. They are types of dog—not breeds—that we wish to see eliminated from it.
We did not wish to go down the road of destruction of these dogs because there are a number of people who come within the category to which the hon. Gentleman referred. They are the sort of people who will try their best to comply with the exemptions that we have provided. I say of necessity, however, that these exemptions must be tough. If we introduced soft exemptions, certain owners of dogs that we want to try to eliminate from our society would find ways of keeping their dogs in our society. For the many reasons that have been given on Second Reading—

Mr. Tony Banks: I did not argue that exemptions should be soft or that owners should be allowed to get round them. I was arguing the contrary point of view. I was saying that many people who want to comply with the terms of the Bill, or the Act as it will be, will not be able to afford to pay. Surely the Government must accept that, when those people got hold of their dogs, the Bill Was not even being contemplated. To ask responsible dog owners to meet the cost in full is a good example of retrospective legislation. That seems wrong, and the Government should be prepared to offer compensation to those owners as well.

Mrs. Rumbold: Very few people would have acquired American pit bull terriers without understanding that they are potentially exceedingly dangerous animals. We are operating within the limitations of the exemption scheme, but some animal welfare organisations my be willing to offer assistance to those who genuinely wish to retain their dogs and to comply with every one of the measures necessary to obtain a certification of exemption.
I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right to insist that the Bill is most important for the elimination of those species from our society. They are too dangerous, and genuinely responsible people would not wish to fly in the face of the dangers that such dogs might provide if they were retained. If owners feel so strongly, I am sure that someone will come to their assistance. I do not believe that that is part of the Government's task and any number of amendments in Committee will not necessarily change the Government's mind.
The Bill is clear, and I hope that it will satisfy the hon. Member for Newham, North-West.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Dangerous Dogs Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of that Act.

Dangerous Dogs Bill

Considered in Committee pursuant to Order [6 June].

New Clause 1

CONTROL OF DOGS NOT OTHERWISE REGULATED

'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision for the registration, identification and control of dogs not otherwise regulated under this Act.
(2) Regulations under this section shall include, provision for the regulations to be administered by local authorities, and for the charging by them of registration fees of such amounts, and subject to such exemptions, as they may determine or the Secretary of State may prescribe.
(3) Any person who without reasonable excuse—

(a) fails to comply without any requirement imposed on him by regulations under this section to register a dog or,
(b) fails to comply with any requirement so imposed as respects identification of a dog,

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
(4) in performing their duties under this section, local authorities may enter into such agreements with any person as may in their opinion facilitate the registration and identification of dogs.
(5) No regulations under this section shall be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament and the Secretary of State shall lay the first draft regulations before the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(6) In this section "local authority", means in England and Wales a District Council, a London Borough Council or the Common Council of the City of London, and in Scotland means an islands or district council.'.—[Dame Janet Fookes]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dame Janet Fookes: I beg to move, That the clause be now read a Second time.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take also new clause 5�žDog registration�ž

'(1) The Secretary of State shall by order make provision for a scheme for the registration, identification and control of dogs.
(2) In making an order the Secretary of State shall provide, inter alia, for the scheme to be administered by local authorities, and for the fixing of registration fees, including such variations as may be prescribed, to be paid by the owners, or keepers of dogs to the relevant authorities.
(3) An owner or keeper of a dog who fails to register it or to ensure that it can be identified in accordance with regulations made under a scheme in accordance with this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
(4) In performing their duties under this section, local authorities may enter such agreements with any person as may in their opinion facilitate the registration and identification of dogs.
(5) The Secretary of State shall, not later than 12 months from the passing of this Act, lay an order under this section before Parliament for approval in accordance with subsection (6) below.
(6) Any order made under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and no order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(7) In this section, "local authority" means in England and Wales a District Council, a London Borough Council or the Common Council, and in Scotland means a District or Islands Council.'.

Dame Janet Fookes: Before I deal with the provisions of the new clause, I wish to set it into context.
I warmly support the Bill's provisions as they stand. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on seeking the advice of experts on this matter and acting on it so that the Bill has reached its present form. Let us be under no illusions. In effect, if not in name, there is a registration scheme for dangerous dogs. It fulfils the basic criterion that dogs and their owners should be identified, and the two are linked. A registration fee, or whatever it is called, will be paid and conditions will be attached. Those are the purposes of a registration scheme and they are fulfilled in the Bill.
I shall seek to persuade the House that it should go one step further and have registration for all dogs not otherwise covered by the Bill. I have sought something of that kind for many years in the company of a number of organisations outside the House. The issue goes back to the mid-1970s. I recall that in 1976 a joint working paper was produced by the Home Office and the Department of the Environment which sought to build on the old dog licensing scheme. Many of the arguments that were valid then are equally valid today.
I led deputations to the Home Secretaries of that period, but with a singular lack of success. That is sad bearing in mind the fact that a Labour Government were in control. I have had an equal lack of success with the present Government.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the original dog licence was introduced not to register difficult or dangerous dogs or those that existed at all, but because there was a great trade in stolen dogs which were brought to London to be sold? The licence scheme was introduced to identify stolen dogs from unstolen dogs and it had nothing to do whatever with the registration of dogs—dangerous or undangerous.

Dame Janet Fookes: But it is perfectly possible to adapt to changing times. I do not, of course, recall the introduction of that particular item, but perhaps my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) does. It was a long time ago�ž1876, was it? I believe that we could build on that old system, but it is water under the bridge. I was merely seeking to observe that my interest in this is of very long standing and that my views have been refined over the years to try to produce what I think is a workable scheme.
One might imagine that those who might have to deal with the dog registration scheme would be opposed to it, but quite the contrary. The interesting thing about the dog registration scheme is that all those at the sharp end, who must deal with the problem of dogs in town and country, want such a registration scheme introduced.
I should like to have the indulgence of the House to make two short quotations from information that I have recently received on this issue. I received a letter from the Association of District Councils at the weekend which said:
The Association fully supports the principle of the Bill but remains convinced that a national dog registration scheme, covering all dogs, with a direct link between a dog and its owner, is the only real way forward in attempting to secure responsible dog ownership. Without such registration, district councils will, in many respects, remain powerless to deal with the many problems that dogs can cause.
I should add that the association was sufficiently interested to produce a complete scheme that it had


worked out for the Department of the Environment some months ago. It wanted the DOE to look at it, but heaven alone knows what happened to it within that hideous building described as the DOE. It does not seem to have seen daylight again. That scheme is an indication of the interest and concern felt by district councils.

Mr. Tony Marlow: The statement that my hon. Friend read out from the Association of District Councils says, in effect, that it cannot carry out its work without a dog registration scheme. In what way will it be unable to carry out its work? It has made an assertion, but provided no evidence.

Dame Janet Fookes: In due course I hope to set this in context so that my hon. Friend will understand—at least I will try to make him understand.
I also recently received a letter from the Institute of Leisure and Amenity Management which said:
This Institute, which represents, inter alia, most of the senior managers of public parks and open spaces in this country, wishes to express its strong support for the introduction of dog licencing by local authorities as a means of controlling the ever-growing dog population by encouraging responsible ownership.
It believes that the arguments are overwhelming. It properly pointed out that many other countries have a dog registration scheme, including parts of North America and that we are out of step and out of line.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dame Janet Fookes: With reluctance and for the last time to my hon. and learned Friend.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the House that her quotations relate to English or Welsh authorities, and that they describe the conditions in those countries and have nothing whatever to do with Scotland?

Dame Janet Fookes: I doubt whether that makes the case any less valid for England. I shall leave my hon. and learned Friend to speak for Scotland.
The Bill has concerned itself with particularly dangerous dogs, but it is important to understand that many other breeds and types of dog cause considerable problems. They are in danger of being overlooked if we concern ourselves with very dangerous dogs. Many dogs bite, as postmen will rather bitterly testify—and they are among the groups that want a registration scheme.
10.30 pm
The National Farmers Union wants a registration scheme because sheep worrying is of great concern to farmers in country areas. We also know that many traffic accidents are caused by dogs that are out of control. However, it is impossible to have proper control unless there are fewer irresponsible owners. It is too easy far them to have a dog, to leave it uncontrolled, and to abandon it. The dogs' homes are full of such animals, which lead miserable lives. If they cannot be re-homed by the animal charities, they are destroyed—probably in the prime of life.

Mr. John Butterfill: Can my hon. Friend explain how registration would assist with the problem of sheep worrying? My understanding is that farmers who find dogs on their land worrying sheep have the right to shoot them, so it is not a question of

identifying the owners. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that farmers would desist from that practice, capture the clogs and return them to their owners? I suspect that they will continue to shoot them.

Dame Janet Fookes: Farmers will no doubt continue to do that, but I am trying to make the case for prevention. which is better than the cure of shooting the dogs. It is a bit late by then; the damage has already been done.
The point that I am trying to make—it is difficult to get it through to some of my colleagues—is that, if we can identify the owners and make them responsible, it is far less likely that they will allow the animals to stray and get out of control. Over time, that will discourage people from having dogs unless they are prepared to care for them.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): Does the hon. Lady agree that if there were a dog registration scheme, the owners of the dogs involved in two incidents in my constituency during the past few days could he traced? In the first incident, a child playing on a school playing field was attacked and bitten by an Alsatian—owner untraceable. In the second, a school teacher supervising children at play on a school playing field was bitten by a rottweiler—owner untraceable. If all dogs were registered, the owners of both those dogs could have been traced and appropriate action taken. I hope that the hon. Lady succeeds tonight with her worthwhile clause.

Dame Janet Fookes: I shall deal with the clause as I see it, and that may answer some of the questions that I hear being asked by hon. Friends sitting behind me. I purposely have not laid down precise details for a scheme—not because of a lack of information, but, in a sense, because there is too much information. The clause simply asks the Secretary of State to produce, within two years, a detailed scheme to be introduced by regulations. That would give ample opportunity to discuss matters with all those who have a keen interest in the matter—the Association of District Councils, the police, the animal charities and anyone else who is concerned.
I envisage a scheme that would require the dog and the owner to be linked by a central computer, into which the district councils would have an input. The cost has been worked out at about £3 per dog per year, which is a very small amount. I have had discussions with computer experts, who tell me that it is an extremely easy exercise. Indeed, there are already some voluntary registration schemes in effect. The Wood Green animal shelter has one such scheme, and it works very well. About a year ago., the Battersea dogs home decided that it would re-home no animal without its being permanently identified—in this case, by the identichip. It is well satisfied with the way that its scheme is working. I commend it to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government, so that they can see something that is actually in use, rather than just talking about a theory.

Mr. Tim Devlin: My first task when I came to the House was to serve on the Standing Committee considering the Bill to introduce the community charge. The Government promised then that administration of the system would be cheap, because of all the modern computer buffs, and also that charges would be kept down to £255 in my area. My constituents


were somewhat disappointed to receive a community charge demand for £430 in the first year. Does my hon. Friend feel entirely confident about a "poll tax" for dogs?

Dame Janet Fookes: Yes, I do. This is a very different matter from the community charge. I do not want to be drawn down that path, but there is every reason to suppose that my proposal could be implemented easily and simply.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Will my hon. Friend advocate benefit for pensioners and others on low incomes—"dog registration benefit"?

Dame Janet Fookes: I have already said that I did not want to include all the details in the new clause, because I thought it important for such problems to be ironed out. It is entirely possible for us to ensure, if we wish, that all dogs are registered, but we need not necessarily impose the same fee for all dogs. It would be possible—if the House so decided after due consideration—to allow a differential licence for, say, guide dogs for the blinds, working dogs generally or dogs of retired people living alone.

Mr. Peter Hardy: As the hon. Lady knows, I have been rather sceptical about the whole business of registration; however, I welcome her more flexible approach.
Do I take it that the hon. Lady has ruled out the option of relying on tattoos, which can be easily obliterated? Can she also relieve one of my anxieties about identification? I understand that the indentity chip would be inserted in the scruff of the dog's neck, and there is some evidence that it could move about and be difficult to locate.
I am told that there is a high failure rate. Can the hon. Lady comment on that? Finally—so that I need not interrupt again—may I ask whether she favours the fixing of the licence by the Secretary of State? Does she feel that the Secretary of State should be able to fix a ceiling, so that certain local authorities could make it virtually impossible for poorer people to keep dogs?

Dame Janet Fookes: I have no evidence that the identity chip has the disadvantages attributed to it by the hon. Gentleman. According to the Battersea dogs home, it is working extremely well, having been in operation for about a year.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, tattooing has certain disadvantages; on the other hand, it is a darn sight better than what we have now, which is nil. We could decide whether people should be allowed a choice of permanent identification or whether we should rely solely on a colour-coded tag, for example. The Home Secretary should give such matters detailed consideration—unless, of course, the Department of the Environment or some other Department takes charge. That is why I have not made firm proposals tonight. Good identification is, however, essential and I believe that we should take advantage of every modern facility available to us.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's argument that computerisation would allow the licensing authority to identify, for example, different breeds. My concern is that almost everyone could claim that they needed their dog for some reason or another. There would remain only a narrow band of people who enjoy an income and who do

not fall into any definable social, health, personal or other category offering them exemption, who would have to pay the full fee.

Dame Janet Fookes: Again, it will be entirely open to the House eventually to decide whether it wants many exemptions or only a few. That is the advantage of the scheme that I propose—every permutation of which could be considered in detail. I simply make the point that it is technically and practically feasible to provide for such exemptions if required. If the House preferred to operate a flat rate covering old-age pensioners, guide dogs for the blind, and so on, so be it. However, it would be perfectly possible to introduce variations without undue bureaucracy.
One of the strangest cries of protest that I have heard is that the scheme would give rise to bureaucracy. As we are living in the age of the computer and not of the quill pen, I fail to understand that argument.
Reference was made to the Swansea scheme. As I recall, that was instituted in the very early days of computerisation, and it was left in the hands of people who were not computer experts. They made some stupid mistakes, which I hope will never be repeated. Most of our affairs are now conducted with the aid of computers, and although mistakes may sometimes be made, by and large we have greatly profited from the service that computers can give—but they are, of course, only as good as the people who have an input into them.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I would not want my hon. Friend to deceive the House in what she said a few moments ago, when she described identification methods. She said that what we have at the moment is nil. Earlier this afternoon, I had the opportunity to question my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I understand that, as a result of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, enforcement procedures are available—particularly in respect of the tagging and identification of dogs. Many of us believe that that would be a simpler and more straightforward way of encouraging responsible ownership and identification than the use of an immensely expensive registration scheme such as my hon. Friend advocates.

Dame Janet Fookes: Let me amend my comment. What we have at the moment is effectively nil. If all the measures on the statute book were enforced, perhaps we would not be in the pickle that we are tonight. Incidentally, I see the enforcement of the collar and tag as the first line of defence. If a dog was seen without a collar and tag, that would immediately alert the authorities that something was wrong, and they could then establish whether the animal was properly identified.
Dog wardens have an essential role to play in educating the public and in enforcing whatever laws relating to dogs there may be. Some local authorities already employ dog wardens, while others do not. All should do so, to complement the scheme that I propose. Some of the cost could be taken from the registration fee, if required. I believe that the Association of District Councils would want that done. Again, that is a matter for debate.
I have sought to outline the reasons why I believe that a dog registration scheme covering all dogs not already included in the Bill is both important and practical, and to suggest the various ways in which such a scheme might be


implemented. The new clause would give the Secretary of State time to work out detailed regulations in consultation with all those who have an interest in the matter.
I have taken rather longer than I had wished because of the large number of interventions. Before I conclude, let me repeat that the RSPCA inspectors, the dog wardens, the local authorities and the police—all the people who have to deal with the problem in practice—want registration. The question that I therefore ask the House is this: are the Government right when they say that registration is unnecessary, or are the people who do the job right?
I commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) said about the new clause and pleased that I was able to put my name to the proposal.
I have listened with interest to the case that has been made about the poverty of pensioners and others who, it is suggested, may not be able to afford the registration fee. I hope that, when we next debate social security matters, Conservative Members will listen to what is said about the problems of elderly people who have been refused benefit and cannot even get a loan from their local social security offices because those offices' budgets have dried up.
Many of the elderly people who hon. Members suggest will suffer hardship under a dog registration scheme would in fact be among the first to seek to register their dogs, because the existence of strays and the actions of irresponsible dog owners can lead to disease, which may be passed to dogs that are valued pets.
I emphasise what the hon. Member for Drake said. In many streets in my constituency and throughout the country, the first thing that children do in the morning is to open the door and let the dog out into the street. Such dogs cannot be regarded as strays in the usual sense, because they go back to the family home to be fed at night. None the less, during the day they are out in the street, where they may cause a nuisance to passers-by and where they pick up whatever parasites may be around. When the elderly responsible dog owners to whom Conservative Members have referred take their dogs out, the pets may pick up a disease from dogs that are left in the street—many of them for 16 hours a day. Registration would allow people such as dog wardens to track down dogs and persuade their owners to become more responsible.
As I said on Second Reading, many people who live in communities where dogs are allowed to stray or to sit out in the street are deeply ashamed of that fact. Even if they have lovely homes and, in some cases, lovely gardens, they are ashamed to take their friends and relatives into the neighbourhood because of the dogs, and many of them want to apply for a transfer to another area and another community.
It should be emphasised that not all owners have only one dog. There can be as many as three dogs living with a household in a tenement flat. That is irresponsible. It is not fair to the dogs, because they are not being properly exercised.
To illustrate what dog registration could do, I shall tell the Committee about a case in a terrace-type housing estate in the Barmulloch area of my constituency. A tenant complained to me that the next-door neighbour had five

dogs in the house during the weekend. It turned out that he was a greyhound owner and before a race he wanted the dogs under his control and not in a kennel in case someone tried to tamper with them. That was all very well, but those dogs were used to being in a kennel where they could hark 24 hours a day. At the weekend, they were in an environment where people wanted a wee bit of peace and quiet—some people were working shifts.

Mr. Butterfill: How would registration help to stop dogs barking?

Mr. Martin: The hon. Gentleman should have the decency to let people speak. He had his chance during an intervention and I dare say that he will get a chance to speak. The rest of us were quiet during his intervention.
Dog registration would help in the situation that I have described because usually when the council questions such a tenant he denies that he is the owner of four or five dogs. Registration would mean that there could be some confirmation that the next-door neighbour was telling the truth when she complained that there were four or five dogs in the household.
Things got so bad in the case that I described that a perfectly good tenant gave up. She could not sleep at night because there were so many dogs in the house next door. What did she do? She applied to the local authority for a transfer, and because she had put up with the carry-on for 18 months, she got it. Her problem has been solved, but when a tenant moves out a potential tenant, looking at the house, will ask why the last tenant left. As a result, areas become hard to let. A factor that is often consistent: in hard-to-let areas is that dogs are allowed to get out of control. Owners should have to face up to registration.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I shall he brief. I welcome the Bill, but I hope that the new clause will not be added to it. I listened to the opening speeches on Second Reading and the right hon. Member for Birmingham. Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made two interesting admissions in his speech. First, when he was challenged by one of my hon. Friends about advice given to the then Labour Government in 1977 by the British Veterinary Association that pit bull terriers should not be imported into this country, he frankly admitted that he had not found that advice persuasive and that he had rejected If he had taken a different course I doubt whether any of us would be detained here this evening to debate this matter, and I think that he probably agrees with me.
When he was challenged again I also heard the right hon. Gentleman say that in 1983 he voted against dog registration and he admitted that he had been in error in so doing. I am sure that at the time he did not think that he was in error.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: If the right hon. Gentleman is so fascinated by my record, it is hardly worth making the point, but he obtained an admission from me when no apology was necessary, which is very much out of character as far as I am concerned. I have now discovered the measure to which he referred—a long enabling Bill referring to about 20 local authority powers, one of which was registration. Much as I believe in registration, if such an enabling Bill were put before the House again today, I would vote against it. The point that the right hon. Gentleman made is false.

Mr. Onslow: I am interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that, because I would have respected him very much if he had also conceded that in 1983 he did not think that registration was necessary because there was not perceived to be a problem with dangerous dogs. I do not know how many pit bull terriers had been imported into the country in the intervening six years after he opened the gates in 1977, but I doubt whether it was many, and I doubt whether there was anything like the evidence that there is today to show that there is a particular threat that must be dealt with urgently, as this Bill seeks to do.
However many pit bull terriers there were in 1983, we are told that there may be 10,000 in Britain today. That is an astonishing figure, and it has not been contradicted. It is recognised now, but it was not in 1983, that they are an affront to society and that something must be done about them. We are talking almost exclusively about the problem of dangerous dogs, and one dangerous breed in particular. It would be better to focus on the Bill, which seeks precisely to tackle the problem, and not to be distracted by the diversion of dog registration. [Interruption.] I can give the hon. Gentleman a figure or two; I know that he is fond of them.
There are said to be 7 million dogs in this country. According to the Metropolitan police, in 1990 there were 468 serious attacks by dogs on people in the metropolis, 111 of which were carried out by one breed alone—the pit bull terrier. If my mathematics is remotely correct, that accounts for about 0·15 per cent. of the dog population of the United Kingdom and about a quarter of the serious attacks on people. That is why we should focus on dangerous dogs rather than being distracted by the resurrection of the dog registration scheme.
We are talking about dangerous dogs and the action that we should take to deal with them. Pit bull terriers are 10 times as dangerous as any other breed. It is no surprise that they should be singled out, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary rightly chose to do so.
If any criticism can be made of the Government, it is that the Bill was not introduced sooner, not that it has been rushed through in response to media pressure and is a knee-jerk reaction. The problem is that the groundwork has been confused by the argument for registration, for reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) mentioned. She rightly claimed much credit for her long advocacy of something to replace the oudated dog licence scheme. We all know that the fee that is charged for a dog licence is ridiculous and that the scheme ceases to have validity.
Complaints have been made about dog nuisance, about the problem of strays and about the cruelty with which some owners treated animals and abandoned them. All that is about animal welfare, not dangerous dogs, but we must focus on the danger. Although there may be a need for better legislation on dog welfare, I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Drake made a powerful case that registration would encourage owners to behave more responsibly in their treatment of dangerous dogs. No responsible owner should have a dangerous dog—it is as simple and straightforward as that.
There has been a dialectical need to confuse the argument for too many years, but at last the fallacy has been identified. Dangerous dogs need special laws, which the Bill provides, but dog registration is unnecessary for other dog owners. I ask, rhetorically perhaps, what would a dog register do? We know that it would be expensive. A

figure of £42 million was mentioned in response to an inquiry carried out by the RSPCA. My hon. Friend the Member for Drake may challenge that.

Dame Janet Fookes: I do. The figure for registration alone is about £20 million, which works out at about £3 per dog.

Mr. Onslow: I am aware of that component of the total, but I understood that there is a component for dog wardens, who presumably will not work for nothing.

Dame Janet Fookes: I did not intend to follow the example of other hon. Members by intervening, but the point I was making was that the amount could be variable, depending how much was loaded on the registration fee.

Mr. Onslow: My hon. Friend still has not answered my question about the cost of the dog wardens. I am sorry to have to say that I do not find her rebuttal of the £42 million figure entirely convincing. I think that we shall just have to agree to disagree.
The other arguments that have been advanced in favour of the dog registration scheme seem almost equally spurious. On Second Reading, some Opposition Members said that a dog that was dangerously out of control, which is mentioned in the Bill, would be dealt with by dog registration, and that would prevent dogs from running across the road and causing car accidents. I do not find that line of thought particularly easy to follow—

Mr. Frank Cook: No.

11 pm

Mr. Onslow: If the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) has ever owned a dog and it has never slipped out of a door without his knowing because someone opened the back door when he was not looking, I should be surprised.

Mr. Cook: I have owned many dogs and used to breed them. The claim with which I take issue is that anyone has suggested that a registration scheme could possibly stop a dog bolting through a door. No one has ever suggested that. The purpose of a registration scheme is that the animal is tagged to an owner who must be responsible for the animal's actions and treatment. Therefore, a registration scheme would serve the dual purpose of ensuring that the animal was treated right and that the owner ensured that the animal treated other people right.

Mr. Onslow: I am sorry to have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, whose judgment in many matters I respect, but I do not think that he can ever have owned which did not slip out of the back door when nobody was looking—responsible owner or not.
We have heard of two incidents in playgrounds where dogs were said to have attacked first a child and then a teacher. I think that lawyers in the Chamber will be able to confirm that, if in either of those cases the dog responsible had been caught and held, it would have been perfectly possible to take action against it and its owner if it had been wearing a tag, as it should have been. It would not have made the dog or the owner behave more responsibly. It would perhaps have made action possible afterwards, but it would not have protected the child or the teacher from a serious attack.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Onslow: If my hon. and learned Friend will forgive me, I shall not give way as I know that many other hon. Members want to speak.
We should focus on what matters to people outside the House, to people with children who have seen the horrible pictures of attacks by dogs which are dangerous and which everyone knows to be dangerous. We should give the Bill a speedy passage and forget about dog registration, because it makes no contribution to the problem.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support the new clause. The key issues that must be tackled are not the horrific attacks on humans—horrible as those are—but stray dogs on the highway, sheep worrying and neglect, which could all be dealt with by a dog registration scheme. It would certainly discourage the practice, which happens all too often in urban districts, of owners turning their dog out of the door first thing in the morning and leaving it to roam around the neighbourhood, assuming that it will return in the evening. The dog is often let out with no collar and no means of identification. The purpose of a registration scheme would be to convince people that if they want to be dog owners they must be responsible ones. Before they take on the responsibility, they should be made to think that looking after a dog is expensive and continues for a long period.
I regret that too many of my constituents become dog owners on a casual basis, believing that it will not cost them much and that, if they lose interest in the dog, someone else will look after it so they do not need to be committed to it. Through the registration scheme, we could convince people that becoming a dog owner involves long-standing expense and responsibility.
If we had an effective system of registration and a system under which dogs were effectively tagged or identified, it would be far easier for people who suffer as a result of dogs roaming about to take action. It would be understood that if people turned their dogs out first thing in the morning and allowed them to roam about, and if those dogs then caused accidents or were involved in sheep worrying, the owners would be involved in considerable expense as a result of demands for compensation.
People who have talked to farmers or have seen sheep and other animals suffering from worrying will know that it is a horrific sight. Farmers who have put in years of effort to build up the quality of their stock find that an hour or so of a pack of dogs chasing their sheep—and sometimes cattle and other animals—can cause great havoc to those stocks. It is horrific to see on the urban fringes packs of dogs attacking not only sheep, but cattle and ponies. Such incidents occur because people kick their dogs out and leave them to roam a round.
It is all very well for Conservative Members to point out that farmers are entitled to shoot dogs that are sheep-worrying. However, when I have talked to farmers who have shot dogs in such incidents, I find that they are most determined to take the dog back to the owner, tell the owner what damage the dog has done and demand compensation. A farmer who has lost 10 or 12 sheep as a result of worrying faces considerable expense. Any farmer who has suffered in that way or anyone who has an animal that is attacked on the urban fringes has a right to be able to go to the person who has irresponsibly let the dog out and to demand compensation for the damage done.
The big advantage of a system that involves dogs being tagged is that the owner can be identified. I make a strong plea for the registration scheme—

Mr. Butterfill: As it is presently the law that dogs should wear an identification tag, can the hon. Gentleman explain why the position would be different under a dog registration scheme? Would we not find that irresponsible dog owners would continue to fail to register and that responsible dog owners would register their dogs? Those dogs wear a collar and tag now.

Mr. Bennett: With a register, it would be possible for wardens fairly quickly to identify those whose dogs were not registered—[HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] Hon. Members may ask how. In my constituency, many dogs roam around. They are picked up by wardens and the owners then reclaim them. Under a registration scheme, it would be simple when a dog was picked up for the first time because people would not get the dog back until it was properly registered and tagged. We could then bring some control into the matter.
At present, dog wardens tell us that they round up dogs, that the dogs are reclaimed by the owners who pay for the short stay in the kennels and that, a week or two later, the dogs are back on the streets causing the same nuisance. An effective system of registration would stop people taking on dogs irresponsibly and would mean that wardens could chase up dogs that were not registered. We could also cut down on the problem of farmers who suffer from sheep worrying—and I am surprised that more Conservative Members do not have sympathy for farmers who suffer in that way and do not care more about the cruelty to the animals chased by dogs.
A registration scheme would also enable us to cut down on the problem of road accidents. Conservative Members who drive along motorways may see a dog going across the motorway—and many stray dogs run across motorways. However much we say firmly to ourselves that we will not swerve to avoid the dog if there is any possibility of an accident, the first instinctive reaction is to try to swerve to avoid the dog. It is surprising how many road accidents are caused as a result of a dog being on the highway. The dog is often killed, but it is almost impossible to find its owner and to make that owner responsible for the mayhem that the dog has caused.
I argue strongly that if we want to add tonight to the attempts to protect people from dogs, we should try to protect animals from worrying and to reduce the number of road accidents. An effective way to achieve that would be to introduce a dog registration scheme. Such a scheme would benefit dogs, as it would reduce the large number of dogs that are neglected by their owners who have lost enthusiasm for the dog that was bought or accepted as a gift on a whim.
I hope that the House will accept the new clause and add it to the Bill.

Mr. Marlow: I have been involved in canine politics since I was elected to the House 12 years ago. I have a son who is blind in one eye as a result of someone not worming their dog properly, and I am aware of the problems that can be caused by dogs.
For a long time, the Government did nothing. As a result, on 26 October 1983 I sought the leave of the House to introduce a Bill under the ten-minute rule to establish a dog registration scheme. My scheme was not dissimilar to


the scheme outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) earlier this evening. The House was full at the time and I gained the support of 59 Opposition Members. A few Opposition Members went into the No Lobby and among them was the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He has subsequently made his point. However, as hon. Members are aware, in a ten-minute Bill, one sets out the principle of an issue and the majority of the colleagues of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook supported that principle. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is a man of principle—at least of flexible principle.
Dogs are lovely creatures, but they cause problems in three ways: through dirt and disease, through danger, injury and fear, and through noise,. I am not aware of any proposal to deal with the problem of dog noise although it must be the most depressing form of purgatory this side of Hades to be subjected to the constant discordant symphony of a neighbour's yapping dog. There may be a solution to that problem, but it cannot be achieved through a system of registration.
When I sought leave to introduce my Bill, nothing had been done about the problem. However, that is no longer the case. There are fairly minor provisions in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989. There are much more radical provisions in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I wonder how many of the registrationists are aware of the provisions in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. According to that legislation, all dogs must be identified by wearing a collar and tag. By that identification they are directly connected to their owners. Local authorities are responsible for enforcing that legislation. Hefty fines are imposed on those who are not prepared to comply.
There is no evidence that such a regime will not be effective. In the unlikely event that it is not effective, I am puzzled that so many hon. Members believe that those who do not comply with the collar and tag legislation would comply with the much more irritating imposition of registration. The collar and tag has the added advantage of being visible evidence of identification, while registration is invisible.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland could add any species to the present legislation, without us passing this Bill, in relation to any species that may be acceptable, such as vulpes vulpinus or any other animal regarded as feral according to common law. Registration would not have the slightest effect on making that power of the Secretary of State for Scotland or that of the Home Secretary any less or any more effective.

Mr. Marlow: As always, I find what my hon. and learned Friend says most reassuring.
Local authorities also have the responsibility of the collection and removal of filth. It is most unlikely, therefore, that they would tolerate large numbers of strays. They would also, therefore, have an incentive to remove unidentified dogs. Over the years, the only dogs that would be in circulation would be those with collars and tags—they would be identified. Local authorities would be under the added pressure, Sir Paul, that you and I as Joe Citizen have the right to take the local authority to court to make

sure that it carries out its requirements to keep the streets clean. Byelaws are being made available to assist—not least the pooper scoop byelaw, of which most hon. Members are aware. In large measure, the problems of filth and disease can now be overcome, and will be overcome, without registration.
11.15 pm
In the Bill, radical, strong action is now being taken against the dangerous dog and the very real terror that it strikes in the hearts of the young, the infirm and the elderly in particular. Fighting dogs will virtually be removed from circulation. Dangerous dogs can be subject to muzzling, and individual animals subjected to restriction orders. Owners of dogs causing dangerous nuisance will be subject, potentially, to large fines and even imprisonment.
The only argument that I have heard which favours the registration of dogs and with which I have long had a certain amount of sympathy is that it will encourage a responsible attitude towards dog ownership. One would not just get a dog if one had to register it first. It would be a disincentive against irresponsible dog ownership—I accept that. However, there is an insufficient understanding of the measures that we have already enacted and that we intend to enact this evening.
Irresponsible dog ownership is about to become a reckless option. Experience will show that registration is not necessary to encourage such responsibility. The issue before us is not whether to register or not to register, but how to overcome the problems of dog nuisance.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman has described most graphically and convincingly the need for extensive operations by local authorities, law enforcement agencies and many others to rid society of the menace of dangerous dogs and also to reduce nuisance. Who should pay for all that, if not dog owners?

Mr. Marlow: That point has been debated in many places on many occasions. Do we make the dog-owning community responsible for all the costs, or do we spread the costs across the whole community? The measures that the Government have brought forward so far, and the measures that are being suggested today, will change attitudes towards irresponsible dog ownership to such an extent that the costs about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned will not be so great as local authorities might first have feared. Therefore, it is a perfectly proper option to expect local authorities to take account of those responsibilities within their general financial provisions. I do not think that it is right to impose the licence regime that has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Drake.

Mr. Bob Cryer: rose—

Mr. Marlow: I am about to finish, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
Registration will not achieve anything that the measures already enacted and those about to be enacted will not achieve, but it will cost money and it will impose a burden without benefit on many law-abiding citizens. One thinks particularly of the owners of small, well-looked after dogs in rural areas. We would be imposing a burden on millions of our citizens. If we can solve a problem without messing people about, it is our duty to do so.

Mr. Hattersley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) on her initiative in tabling the new clause and on the authoritative and moderate manner in which she moved it—and a lot of good that did her with her own Back-Bench colleagues, who treated the new clause in a manner which was very often lacking in courtesy. That is because they never learn. Having pursued the bone-headed preoccupation with deregulation for 10 years and got the Government, their party and this country into a great deal of mess because of that preoccupation, they still believe that deregulation, with the Government standing back and not acting, is the solution to every problem. Between now and the general election they will learn that that is not the opinion of the British people. It would have been good if they had learnt that lesson before we had this debate on dog registration and if they had come to understand the advantages that dog registration would provide.
The speech of the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) showed the unthinking attitude that will become evident between now and I am on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have either read or understood the Bill. He repeated time and again that the Bill is intended to deal with two breeds of fighting dog. That is the purpose of one of the clauses. I support that clause, and I have said time and again, both inside and outside the House, that the Government are to be congratulated on the way they have dealt with that problem. Had the right hon. Gentleman read on beyond clause 2, however, he would have discovered that the Bill is designed to deal with other categories of dogs—in themselves dangerous but not, in the Government's opinion or in mine, so dangerous that the breed ought to be prohibited and eventually wiped out.
The question, therefore, is how we should deal with what I shall call the generality of dogs, many of which, perhaps most of which, are well looked after, and many of which, perhaps most of which, are kept under proper control, but some of which are not, and all of which are potentially dangerous in one way or another. There is not an organisation in the country, from the RSPCA to the Kennel Club, that does not concede that every dog can potentially cause damage and destruction. It may be by the sudden biting of a small child, it may be by running out into the road and causing an accident, or it may be for other reasons, but every dog is a potential source of danger.
Despite that fact, and despite the provisions in the Bill to deal with all dogs, the Home Secretary kept saying—he said it three times—that we ought to focus on what really matters, which is fighting dogs, as though in some strange way the inclusion of the new clause in the Bill would diminish the power that the Bill provides to deal with pit bull terriers and tosas. It will do no such thing. The idea that by voting for the new clause we shall dilute the rest of the Bill is absolute nonsense. All the authoritative organisations argue that by voting for the new clause we would strengthen the Bill and make the rest of it more likely to work in practice, for three or four specific reasons which I shall shortly describe. Before doing so, however, I wish to deal with what have been and with what will continue to be the objections to the new clause.
We shall be told that the miscreants—the people for whom, according to those who support registration, registration is most necessary—will be the people who are least likely to register. We shall be told that registration

does not, of itself, provide any protection. We shall also be told that registration is excessively bureaucratic. We were told all those things specifically by the Home Secretary, explicitly in relation to the registration of pit bull terriers and tosas. He now accepts that those three arguments do not apply. They are just as bogus for dogs in general as they are for pit bull terriers. As the Home Secretary has come to realise that fact, I hope that some of his right hon. and hon. Friends will come to realise it, too.
The Government are determined that this debate will continue until I am, and it is important that as many hon. Members who want to do so should have the opportunity to speak. I shall therefore be brief. All that I wish to do is to make again the case that I tried to make on Second Reading—a positive case for a register. As the right hon. Member for Woking said, it is true that about a quarter of all the serious assaults by dogs in the capital last year were by one breed—pit bull terriers—but it will not have escaped the right hon. Gentleman's attention that if only a quarter of the assaults were by pit bull terriers, the special category for which we are taking special powers, three quarters of those assaults were by other breeds of dog that reasonable people believe ought to be kept under control and supervision.
One way of doing that is to extend the powers that the Home Secretary rightly intends to extend. It can be done by extending the categories of dogs that can be treated most severely. I hope and trust that that extension will prove not to be necessary, as I am sure does the right hon. Gentleman. It can be done by extending the powers to enable the courts to insist on muzzling and on dogs being kept in a safe place and eventually, although I remain sceptical about the Government's determination, by taking the power to insist that all dog owners take out third party insurance to protect those who may be injured by their pets.
All those measures are in themselves desirable. We have hoped for and supported all of them, but the one extra step of registration has an overwhelming advantage with which even the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) agrees—and if he perceives it, surely everyone else can. Registration will increase the climate of responsibility among dog owners and encourage people to realise that owning a dog is not something to be undertaken frivolously or lightly, or undertaken for a moment before the dog is abandoned. I mean "abandoned" in both senses of the word—abandoning the concept of responsibility and abandoning the dog. Too often, particularly after Christmas, dogs are abandoned on motorways and streets.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North, I believe, asked why the body of responsible and respectable dog owners who cherish and look after their pets should be required to meet some of the costs involved in forcing the irresponsible owners into registration. Every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has announced his credentials. I was brought up in a family that always had dogs. My mother still has a dog. I do not have a dog in London, because I do not believe that it is responsible to have a dog living in the centre of London. One of the things to which I look forward when I shuffle off this place is going to Yorkshire and living a life that enables me to own a dog.
The people I know who are the most responsible owners of dogs are also among the people most keen on


registration. Responsible dog owners know that registration protects dogs. I repeat what I said on Second Reading, because it is important. Everyone knows of even reputable kennels—not the dog farmers or the people who breed cross-bred puppies and then give them away to anyone who comes along—which sell dogs in large numbers before Christmas in the certain knowledge that, a few days afterwards, a high percentage will be abandoned or given away.
If those reputable dealers were required by law to insist that whoever purchases one of their dogs registers the dog and accepts that legal responsibility, the casual way in which, too often, dogs are bought and then abandoned would certainly be reduced. That is why, in my experience, responsible dog owners would gladly pay a small fee to extend the responsibility that they feel to a wider group. I repeat what all responsible organisations say—that, as well as protecting dogs, registration would increase the climate of responsibility, which would also protect people.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), who intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Drake—I think that he thought he was amusing—said that farmers would still shoot registered dogs if they savaged sheep. I am sure that that is so, but the object of registration is to make owners so responsible that sheep do not get savaged in the first place—to make the owner say, "I have a legal responsibility for this dog."

Mr. Butterfill: It is a shame that the right hon. Gentleman impugns the intelligence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). If the right hon. Gentleman cared to read my right hon. Friend's speech, he would find that he misunderstood what he said. But that is beside the point. Sheep savaging is appalling, but if the present law were adequately enforced, identification of dogs and dog ownership would be equally responsible. All that the right hon. Gentleman wants to do is to produce unnecessary bureaucracy.

Mr. Hattersley: If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about bureaucracy, I will repeat one point for him. If the Home Secretary chose, he could act gradually, breed by breed. The hon. Member for Drake has allowed for much flexibility in the way in which measures could be introduced. I would introduce exactly the same bureaucracy for some breeds as the Home Secretary already advocates and as is now to be introduced for pit

bull terriers which are exempted under the extinction orders. I am prepared to extend the principle, just as the Home Secretary should be, if he is to be consistent with the latest position that he has adopted on this issue.
Finally, if we are to have a society in which dogs are cared for in a way that will protect both the public and the dogs, the Government must inculcate a general atmosphere of responsibility. In the view of all the authorities and organisations concerned, a dog registration scheme would help to create that atmosphere.
I ask Conservative Members, who have spent the past 13 years believing that their views and ideology are always right and that nothing that conflicts with their views could ever be right, to consider the possibility that, on the subject of a registration scheme, the RSPCA, the Royal Society of Veterinary Surgeons, the National Farmers Union, the Automobile Association and the Police Federation, members of which all have deep and personal interests in this matter, might just know what they are talking about—and they all say that registration will make dog owners more responsible and will, in the short term, help to solve the problem.
11.30 pm
I do not say, and none of my hon. Friends would say, that a registration scheme would solve all the problems—nor, I am sure, would the Home Secretary, with all his confidence, say that his Bill would meet all the problems—but we are struggling for some marginal improvement. I have no doubt that registration would bring about a more than marginal improvement—indeed, that the improvement would be significant.
Whether or not the House introduces such a scheme this evening, sooner or later, one will be introduced because it is what all those involved with dogs want. Only the irresponsible are against it—the irresponsible dog owners and the irresponsible politicians who hold the little view about deregulation and cannot think outside that prejudice.
I hope that the House will support the new clause, because we know for certain that it is the majority view of the House. As I have said, if that view is frustrated and the new clause is not included in the Bill, it will be only because the Government have insisted on the vote being held in the small hours of the morning and have whipped their Members as strongly as they could to support their narrow, prejudiced view. If the new clause is not passed now, it will return sooner or later, in one place or another, to become the law of the land.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): Those who have been following the debate will know that the Bill deals with dangerous dogs and goes much wider than pit bull terriers and Japanese tosas. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has acknowledged the provisions of clause 1, about which there is general consensus in the House.
Clause 2 deals with various breeds of dogs and gives the Home Secretary reserve powers, which can be exercised only with the full approval of both Houses of Parliament, to designate a particular breed if he feels that it is a serious danger to the public, and to impose muzzling or leashing orders upon that breed—as opposed to individual dogs. That power is circumscribed because it is a considerable power to which I believe that certain of the dog interests would object strongly. I do not believe that the RSPCA would welcome the exercise of that power, but I am empowered and, indeed, statutorily required by the Bill to discuss the way in which it is used.
Clause 3 deals with the generality of dogs and with the penalties that will arise when an owner allows his dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place. That is an effective and significant change. We are dealing not only with the fighting dogs or with rottweilers and alsatians: the provisions apply to any dog and impose severe penalties on owners, such as six months' imprisonment or a £5,000 fine. Embedded in that clause is a very important order-making power for the magistrates courts. If someone complains to a magistrate that a dog is out of control, even if it has not savaged anybody, considerable restrictions could be placed upon it.
The Bill therefore considerably increases the powers that are available to the courts and to the various bodies in our land that deal with the problem of dangerous and vicious dogs. It is inevitable and appropriate that any dog legislation should involve a debate on registration, but, in the light of what I have said, I know that many of my hon. Friends do not see the link between dealing with dangerous dogs and registration. I say to those who are enthusiastic about registration that I believe that it would have had no effect on the three severe attacks recently—in each instance, ownership was clearly identified—and no effect on the attitude of the owners.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame .J. Fookes) says, first, that registration would enhance responsible ownership. Secondly, she says that dogs should be clearly identified. Finally, she argues that costs would be moderate, sensible and easily affordable. I think that I do no disservice to my hon. Friend's arguments.
Would responsible ownership be enhanced? If a registration scheme is to be respected, it must be enforceable. The dilemma that supporters of a registration scheme always have to face is that the responsible owner will comply with it. We heard a moving speech from the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), who said that while he is a Member of Parliament he is not prepared to have a dog. That is because he is so busy that he would not have time to train the dog and the puppy, which would require so many hours a day. That is the attitude of the responsible person, and clearly someone who has that attitude would comply with a registration scheme. Such a person will comply with the Bill's provisions when they are

enacted. He is someone who trains and disciplines his dogs and looks after them properly. Such an owner is causing no trouble at present.
If registration is to be effective, it must bear down on the irresponsible—those who do not keep their dogs on a leash in the park and those who let their dogs jump up at other people. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Drake has examined the Bill's provisions, which bear upon these very matters precisely. I do not believe that by having a registration scheme we shall see a change in attitude towards the ownership of dogs, and those who advocate a registration scheme are inclined to oversell it. If they believe that registration will change attitudes and make everyone responsible owners—

Mr. Frank Cook: Does the Home Secretary agree that the logic that he is using to try to destroy some of the rationale behind the new clause could be applied equally to firearms certificates? The person who does not have a firearms certificate is the irresponsible owner and the person who does is responsible. Would he extend his logic and dismiss firearm certificates? Would he not rather join those of us who are clearer in thought and who accept the logic of the need for a dog registration scheme?

Mr. Baker: The matters are very different. The ownership of firearms in our society is much more restricted than the ownership of dogs, and firearms are much more expensive than dogs. I do not believe that there is a fair comparison.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Drake that the powers in clause 3 deal with the responsibility of owners. I know that she and the RSPCA support them.

Dr. John Reid: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Baker: I understand that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, and I suggest that I do not give way. In earlier debates I gave way many times and I think now that it would be better to proceed with my speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Drake talked about identification. As she rightly says, if we can link ownership with the name of a dog and a registered address, the present position will be improved. I agree with that. In recent incidents, however, the identification of the owner was not an issue. In all cases it was quite easy to identify the owner. When vicious attacks take place it is nearly always quite easy to identify the owner, unless the dog is a stray. When dealing with vicious, savage dogs, I fail to see that there is a link between them and identification. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Drake has raised a serious point, which must be addressed, about the identification of dogs. Several hon. Members expressed concern about the number of strays in their constituencies and they wanted to know the present law on clog identification.
Under section 13 of the Animal Health Act 1981, dogs are required to wear collars and tags in a public place. The penalty for non-compliance is a £2,000 fine, which will soon rise to £5,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Drake was right, however, to say that, although that law is on the statute book nothing much is happening about it. I have good news for my hon. Friend: when section 151 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is brought into force from 1 April 1992, it will place a duty on district councils


and London boroughs to enforce the dog collar requirement. I know that my hon. Friend will welcome that.
Section 149 of the 1990 Act will also be brought into force at the same time and districts will be responsible for appointing dog wardens and the picking up, detaining and, if possible, returning of stray dogs to their owners. The district councils and London boroughs will have responsibility for both of those important control measures. Those controls, together with those in the Bill, will go an enormous way towards achieving what my hon. Friend the Member for Drake wants to 'achieve and what she has spent a great deal of her life promoting—the role of responsible ownership.
The third argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Drake related to the cost of registration. My hon. Friend was right to say that some animal welfare organisations have voluntary registration schemes. They charge low fees of about £3 or £4. I know that my hon. Friend would be first to recognise, however, that those schemes are inexpensive because they are voluntary—therefore they do not have to bear any enforcement costs —and because they cater for what might be described as the easy end of the market, those responsible owners who choose to register and insure their dog and take great care to ensure that it causes no harm to others. Such voluntary registration schemes are not a reasonable basis on which to estimate the likely fee for a general dog registration scheme.
We have some guidance on those costs, because the London School of Economics was asked to estimate them by the RSPCA in 1989. The total cost amounts to £46 million per year of which £23 million would be for dog wardens and associated kennelling. The other £23 million would go on the administration of the system. I understand that another £4·5 million should be added for the initial cost of registering about 700,000 dogs each year —if one assumes that there are 7 million dogs, which live for 10 years, that is equivalent to registering 700,000 a year. The total cost in 1989 was put at about £50 million —equivalent today to about £60 million.
It would be necessary to charge a much greater fee than the £3 or £4 suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Drake to cover the cost of the scheme. The cost also depends on the percentage of owners who comply. If one has 100 per cent. compliance, the cost can be spread over 7 million dogs. However, in Northern Ireland the rate of compliance is below 50 per cent. and in the Republic of Ireland it is below 30 per cent.

Mr. William Ross: If the right hon. Gentleman knows that compliance is below 30 per cent. in Northern Ireland, how did he get the total figure?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman must have misheard me. I said that compliance was just below 50 per cent. in Northern Ireland and that in the Republic it was 30 per cent. The hon. Gentleman would expect Northern Ireland to be more law-abiding in this matter than the Republic. [Interruption.] Only in this matter.
Many countries have a requirement to register dogs, but it is one of the most unobserved laws. Italy and Spain have systems of registration, but there is scant regard for them. In Spain the fee is about £27. The LSE has estimated

that a registration scheme could cost £60 million. That could be met by a one-off payment of £121 payable for life, or by a fee of £29 payable for initial registration with £9 payable annually thereafter. That level of fees raises a second tranche of questions about whether certain people should be exempted.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: rose—

Mr. Baker: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who will no doubt have the opportunity to speak in a moment.

Mr. Maclennan: rose—

Mr. Baker: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman today, but I will hear his point.

Mr. Maclennan: I do not want to detain the House, but the Home Secretary mentioned the LSE figures. He gave only the debit side; he did not mention the LSE calculations of the existing cost of dealing with stray dogs, which would be met by a registration scheme. He will have the up-to-date figures, but even in 1989 the cost to the public was £70 million. That was met not from a registration scheme, but from other funds.

Mr. Baker: I should not have given way to the hon. Gentleman. The cost of dealing with strays is included in the current level of expenditure. They are dealt with sometimes by the police, sometimes by vets, sometimes by the RSPCA and sometimes by dog wardens. That is already happening, so we are discussing extra costs.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has committed the Labour party to a dog registration scheme. He did not give any details about it this evening. I am not surprised, because I have searched the records to find Hattersley on dogs, and it is a rare entry. I could find Hattersley on constitutional reform, Hattersley on freedom of information, Hattersley on cricket, Hattersley on Yorkshire, Hattersley on food—but Hattersley on dogs was a rare entry. I was hoping that he would tell us how he envisages the scheme. In the last two documents published by his party, he committed it to a dog registration scheme. The House should know whether the scheme is to be self-financing or subsidised. Would the right hon. Gentleman like to tell us?

Mr. Hattersley: I am supporting the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes), who was kind enough to explain to the Home Secretary, in the belief that he would take it in and deal with it, that she is proposing a very wide discretion for the Home Secretary of the day. When the new Home Secretary is in place, whoever he may be, I am sure that he will not try to misquote the figures, as the right hon. Gentleman did until he was caught out by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). The new Home Secretary will be sensible enough to know that the scheme will represent a saving rather than a liability.

Mr. Baker: That was the most extraordinary piece of arithmetic, which should be drawn to the attention of the shadow Chancellor immediately. Everybody recognises that there is a cost for registering 7 million dogs. There is the computer cost and the cost of enforcement. The LSE, at the request of the RSPCA, put that at £60 million.
The right hon. Gentleman did not answer my question. Is the scheme to be self-financing or is it to be subsidised? Until he answers, how can we know what the level of fee will be? He is going to the country with a scheme that is uncosted. He is trying to persuade people that it is likely to cost a few pounds, when in fact it is likely to cost £10 or £20—[Interruption.] The Opposition want a dog registration scheme, but they do not have an idea among them of how it would be run. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be more specific.
I have tried to explain why I do not think that a dog registration scheme would be effective in promoting responsible ownership. Collaring and tagging, the proposals in clause 3 and the other measures in the Bill will effectively achieve that, and commend all those provisions to the House.

Mr. Maclennan: I would not have made this speech had not the Home Secretary made it abundantly plain that he had wholly misunderstood the case for registration, and also misrepresented the arguments of his hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes). Her new clause is linked with new clause 5, which stands in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), although, if it comes to a vote, I will readily support the hon. Lady's new clause in preference to my own.
The Secretary of State is scraping the bottom of the barrel if he has to juggle figures to conceal the benefit to the public of a registration scheme.

Dr. Reid: The Home Secretary not only juggled the figures, but completely misrepresented the argument put not only by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) but by Opposition Members. According to the right hon. Gentleman, it was being suggested that a simple registration scheme would bring about a total and fundamental change in responsibility. What was actually suggested—and repeated three or four times—was that such a scheme wold add significantly to owner responsibility. No one suggested that it would lead to a revolution.

Mr. Maclennan: All who have spoken in favour of a registration scheme have made extremely modest claims for it—none more than the hon. Member for Drake, to whose persuasive arguments hon. Members on both sides of the House listened very carefully. I am sure that, if any hon. Members came into the Chamber tonight without having made up their minds already, they would have been influenced by what she said.
What I found particularly surprising—even more bizarre than all that playing with figures, which the Home Secretary might have thought that he could get away with at this time of night—was the right hon. Gentleman's failure to recognise the strength of expert opinion. I do not set myself up as a dog expert. I cannot imagine that the right hon. Gentleman considers me sufficiently important to merit the trawl for quotes to which he has subjected the utterances of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), but he may wish to confirm that I have never before spoken about dogs in the House. I do, however, pay considerable attention to what is said by those who have had direct experience of dealing with dogs, and who run dog warden schemes—local authorities; the police, who must try to enforce the law as it stands and who are aware of its inadequacies; and the

National Farmers Union in both Scotland and England, which is concerned about the damage done by dangerous dogs that worry livestock.
We should be extremely unwise to turn our back on all those bodies when they are saying the same things. The fact that the Home Secretary did not even mention that clear consensus suggests that he is playing to a very small gallery of supporters immediately behind him; certainly he is not directing his remarks to wider opinion outside. Most people would be utterly mystified by his unwillingness to listen to, or engage with, the arguments deployed by such responsible bodies as the RSPCA, and by all the other organisations that must deal with the problem of half a million stray dogs roaming around.
Obviously, the Bill deals primarily with dangerous dogs, and it was in that connection that new clause I was tabled. It can be justified on the ground that it is intended to strengthen new clause 3, in particular. That is not the only justification. There will be many other benefits. Dogs can not only be dangerous but cause a substantial nuisance and disease. For all those reasons, the Home Secretary could have shown a little humility and accepted the advice of those who know better, and who have had responsibility for dealing with the issue rather longer than he has.

Mr. Devlin: I find myself in an interesting position, because I am agnostic about this issue. When I first entered the House, I supported my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) in her proposal for a dog registration scheme. I did so because there are 7·5 million dogs in this country, and far too many of them are running stray around my constituency. I felt that, if we introduced a sensible registration fee that everyone would have to pay before they were allowed to own a dog, it would serve as a major disincentive—with only those people who were serious would become dog owners. I envisaged them paying a substantial fee of £50 or £60 when they bought a dog. I envisaged also an annual registration fee, with the use of a coloured disc on the dog's collar, for example, to identify those who were registered. Those that were not would be destroyed.
That is a good principle but—as I said in an earlier intervention—I accepted another good principle, which is that everyone should pay something towards the cost of local government. I voted for the community charge on the basis that we live in an age in which computers can solve all our problems. We were assured by everyone that the running costs would be relatively low and that the bureaucracy would not grow.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) told me that that was all nonsense—that the bureaucracy would mushroom and that costs would soar. We did not believe him, because the experts told us about schemes running in different parts of the world, and assured us that we would be able to contain the costs. In any event, the community charge would only be about £250 in Stockton-on-Tees. On that basis, about half the population would have been better off and half worse off, and on that basis it was a fair principle.
We went with it, and in the first year the community charge was £430. We have now been compelled to introduce the reduction scheme. We heard arguments about pensioners, student nurses, and all sorts of other people who could not afford to pay. All kinds of exemptions were being claimed by different interests.
What is the dog registration scheme, after one has stripped it away, but a poll tax for dogs? The intention is to impose a head tax on 7·5 million dogs. We shall tax every single one of them, which will require an army of inspectors. Just as with students, there will be dogs that disappear somewhere into the system. Then we shall have to charge something more to those who pay to compensate for those who do not. The extra £19 that has to be paid in Stockton-on-Tees to compensate for those who do not pay their poll tax is very much resented.
One must consider also the other bureaucratic problems. I wonder whether it is a good idea to support new clause 1. Is the problem a gap in the existing law or lack of enforcement? I listened with interest when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that provision is made in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to make local authorities enforce the existing law. I remember that clause, because I spoke on it when the House debated it.
Once we enforce the existing law, we must ask ourselves what more will be achieved by introducing an extra poll tax for dogs with all the attendant bureaucracy that will go with it. If every dog wears a collar carrying a tag with its name and that of its owner, we shall be able to trace the owner. In respect of dogs whose owners one can trace, provisions in the animals, dogs and guard dogs legislation can be applied to cover almost every eventuality. In respect of the really dangerous fighting dogs—tosas and American pit bull terriers—the provisions of the present Bill will apply. I am beginning to wonder what more will be achieved if we go the whole hog and accept a full-scale registration scheme.

12 midnight

Mr. Rupert Allason: I am entertained by the parallel that my hon. Friend draws with the poll tax, but does he not agree that if it is a parallel in principle, that principle has already been accepted for dangerous dogs, in respect of which the Government have agreed that a registration scheme supplies the remedy?

Mr. Devlin: I think that the situation is rather different. [HON. MEMBERS: "You would, wouldn't you?"] Yes, I would, and I will tell the House why. If all tosas and American pit bull terriers are neutered and muzzled in public, the breeds will die out. That means that we are looking at a short-term problem; registration will not continue into the indefinite future. If similar arrangements were applied in respect of all 7·5 million dogs, however, the bureaucracy involved would be nightmarish.
I fully support the principle of what my hon. Friend the Member for Drake is trying to do. I want there to be a lot fewer dogs in this country, and I certainly want to see a major reduction in the amount of dog mess in every part of our community. It ruins all our parks and public places and is a grave danger to children, and my constituents feel very strongly about it. In one part of my constituencyThornaby—we have large packs of stray dogs roaming around. I want those dogs destroyed, but I know that, come the day when we start destroying large numbers of dogs, the dog lovers will be after us. We are in a no-win situation and, frankly, this is one of those questions in respect of which it is best to remain agnostic. Whatever we decide, we shall upset someone. Either we shall upset dog owners or we shall—

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Devlin: No, I shall not give way because I want to conclude,

Dame Janet Fookes: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Devlin: In a moment.
I go back to what I learned with the poll tax. If we expect the project to cost us £40 million, it will end up costing us £80 million or even £100 million. Then the Treasury will get hold of the idea and say, "Here's a nice little earner to add to the yearly increases in duty on cigarettes and alcohol and so on." Before we know where we are, the cost of registration will be £100 a year. Then we shall have student nurses and pensioners queueing up and saying, "Why can't we have a rebate? We cannot afford that amount."

Dame Janet Fookes: I fail to understand how my hon. Friend can apparently support registration for one set of dogs but not for the rest, and as for his concern about upsetting one group or another whatever we do, if that really worries him, he ought to leave politics immediately.

Mr. Devlin: I am grateful for the advice, but I am afraid that I shall disappoint my hon. Friend and stay here for a considerable period resolving such dilemmas in the best interests of my constituents. Large numbers of my constituents have written to me in support of a dog registration scheme because the RSPCA has led them to believe that it is a panacea. I recognise, however, that I have been sent to this place not merely to articulate the wishes of that minority which shouts the loudest but to use my judgment. My judgment in this case is that any Government who introduce a dog registration scheme, thus placing a burden on every dog owner in the country will not end up a popular Administration. I say that to Labour Members in case they feel like introducing such a scheme when they are next in power—if they ever are.
On balance, and after considering these matters carefully, I do not feel that the new clause deserves my support in the Lobby tonight.

Miss Kate Hoey: The Home Secretary is not in his place at the moment, but I found his speech disappointing. It showed that he is totally out of touch, not merely with feeling in the country on this issue, but also —as has been pointed out by many hon. Members—with the feelings of the experts, the people who know what is happening with dogs at grass roots level.
I am totally in support of the new clause. I have been a strong supporter of dog registration and of more restraint on dogs for a long time. I feel that we have too many dogs in this country and that too many people individually own too many dogs.
Registration is not a panacea—it will not stop people being attacked by dogs or solve all the problems that have been mentioned by hon. Members—but it is a start. It is about changing the attitudes of the many people in this country who still feel that having a dog gives them a right not to look after it properly, as many people do not, and a right to allow the dog to behave in whatever way they feel is proper. That is not merely a risk to children in the streets, because of all the diseases that we know about, but is also a risk to car drivers because of accidents with dogs. We know all about the statistics.
Registration is about changing people's attitudes so that they will realise that buying a dog means taking responsibility for it. Because there is no legislation linking dog ownership with getting the dog in the first place, there is no opportunity to make people feel responsible. Until we start that, we shall not change people's attitudes.
Ten years ago people had the attitude that it was all right to smoke where one liked, that it did not matter and that there was no such thing as risks from passive smoking. Gradually we have changed people's attitudes about that.
Some people, such as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) have fought on this issue for a number of years. It used to be unpopular to take up the issue of dog abuse, dogs fouling the pavements, dogs in parks or being allowed to run around in housing estates at risk. The position has changed because the RSPCA, the League for the Introduction of Canine Control and other such organisations have fought hard for the issue to be raised, not merely in the House but throughout the country.
If we do not take this step forward tonight, the subject will be back. I am sure that the Bill will get through the Lords and that we shall be debating it again in a month or so. I have been a Member of Parliament for only two years and no issue has been discussed more than dogs [Interruption.] One of the problems with late night debates is that the standard of behaviour goes down. This issue will return.
Several hon. Members mentioned Northern Ireland and the fact that only 50 per cent. of dog owners have registered there. Perhaps it is 50 per cent. or perhaps it is 55 per cent., but the Ulster Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has said that the number of strays has decreased. That is what we are talking about—trying to create a climate in this country in which people do not think that it is acceptable for dogs to run around loose or be allowed to do more or less what they like. Unless we start off with registration—using the money that results to bring in more dog wardens, and to educate people to realise when they register a dog that they must have it wormed every year and ensure that it is kept in a proper place and is properly exercised—we shall not solve the problem.

Mr. William Ross: Before one gets possession of a dog, or even a pup, in Northern Ireland one must have a licence for it. That is also part and parcel of the reason why the number of dogs has decreased. Does the hon. Lady agree that it might do all hon. Members a world of good if they went down to the Vote Office, got a copy of the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, and read it through?

Miss Hoey: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. People should not be able to buy a dog as easily as they can buy an ice cream. They should have to prove that they can look after it and pay a registration fee, just as they do for a television licence or a firearms certificate, although I do not suggest that the cost should be the same.
One of the most appalling comments that the Home Secretary made—not in today's debate, but a few weeks ago when speaking on the need for legislation on dangerous dogs, which we all support—was that other incidents involving dogs had been just normal dog bites. There is no such thing as a normal dog bite. Children, adults, and the thousands of postmen and postwomen who have suffered such attacks know that such incidents are

not normal and should not be accepted as such. We must recognise that the Bill does not go far enough, as attacks on postmen and postwomen often occur on private property.
The Home Secretary may think that he will manage to scrape through by two votes, but the issue will not go away. I am sure that we shall reconsider it when we debate Lords amendments, but we have an opportunity tonight to vote for dog registration and to bring the issue to an end.

Mr. Simon Burns: May I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame Janet Fookes) on tabling the new clause? Every right hon. and hon. Member is aware of her passionate and sincerely held views on dog registration, and we all admire and respect her for them.
I came to the House in 1987 and shared the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). I had an open mind on dog registration and was prepared to be persuaded of the case for a registration scheme, provided it met the criteria advanced by its proposers. The more I have considered the scheme and the more it has been debated, argued and counter-argued, the more I have become convinced that it is not a panacea for the problems of stray dogs and dog ownership.
It is important that more is done to control dogs, especially stray dogs, but we heard the announcement this evening by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, that the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will come into force from next April and that all dogs will be made to wear a collar with an identifiable tag. I am not naive enough to pretend that that will be easy to achieve, but it must be achieved, and the Home Office has a role to play in publicising the law before it comes into force to ensure that people are aware of it and comply with it.
The horrific attacks by dogs that have been highlighted in the past few years and the problem of stray dogs, which is prevalent throughout the country, would not be curbed by a dog registration scheme. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that a registration scheme would not necessarily make dog owners more responsible.
I also believe that because, although an individual may be a responsible dog owner, that does not necessarily mean that he or she would register his or her dog under a dog registration scheme. We had a dog licence scheme for many years in this country, and I suspect that thousands, if not millions, of perfectly responsible dog owners refused, or did not bother, to buy a dog licence. I suspect that that would also be the case with a dog registration scheme.
More importantly, I think that we would all find that irresponsible dog owners would certainly not want to register their dogs, if only because they would not want to pay any money. A number of figures for the cost of the dog's registration have been bandied about in this debate. I suspect that a fee of £3 per dog is on the low side. When the scheme came into force, I think that the fee would be far higher, which would prove an even greater deterrent for dog owners to register their dogs.
12.15 am
Even if dog owners did register their dogs, we would not see an end to the horrific attacks on children and adults that have taken place in this country. In the past 18 months, the owner of the dog involved in every attack that has taken place has been identified. Identification has not been the problem—the problem has been that the dog's


owner was irresponsible enough not to be able to control that dog in a public place. The Bill will go a long way towards trying to rectify that problem. People may argue, with some justification, that we need not a dog registration scheme, but a scheme to register the owners to ensure that they are more responsible in the way in which they look after their dogs.
I also believe that, if we had a dog registration scheme, not only would there be mass avoidance, but there would still be dogs straying around. As supporters of the scheme would argue, if the owners of those dogs had registered their pets, they would be easily identified. The same would be true under the laws that are to come into force next April, because if people comply with the law of giving their dog a collar and tag, they too will be able to identify the dog, so that the problems of bureaucracy and cost are eliminated.

Mr. Robert Banks: Surely my hon. Friend would agree that the problem of strays stems from the problem of irresponsible owners. If someone goes into a pet shop or to a breeder to buy a dog, would it not be better if that person had to fill in their name and address and describe the dog on an application form for registration and pay to have their dog registered? Would not that engender a greater sense of responsibility and reduce the stray problem?

Mr. Burns: I understand my hon. Friend's point. If someone goes to a breeder to buy his or her dog, that may be true. But I suspect that many breeders, particularly those who own dogs and allow them to have puppies to make a bit of money on the side, will not bother with ensuring that the dogs they sell, give away or pass on are registered and linked into a scheme. Therefore, a majority of dogs that are sold or given to other people may not be registered. How exactly will a dog registration scheme work? My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake said that it would be up to the Home Secretary of the day to fill in the details, which I accept. However, even if the Home Secretary of the day—whoever he or she may be —fills in the details, there will be problems.
Who is to be exempted from the scheme? Will all pensioners be exempted? Will the richer pensioners as well as the genuinely less well-off pensioners be exempted? If that is the case, those who do not fit that category and who are not exempted will have to pay more, thereby increasing the fee and reducing the number of people prepared to register their dogs. Will all the unemployed be exempted from registering their dogs and from paying a fee, or only from paying a fee? People go in and out of work, so there will be confusion and added bureaucracy which will, again, add to the costs. Will children be exempted from paying the fee? That will again increase the costs.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman is asking many rhetorical questions, which I will not attempt to answer. His hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) said that these matters should not be considered as questions of principle, but could be adapted in the way that the House considered appropriate.

Mr. Burns: I would have been grateful if the hon. Gentleman had had the courtesy to listen to what I was saying. I said when I embarked on my line of argument

that I do not think that we should be expected to vote this evening for a pig in a poke. We should know more about what a dog registration scheme would mean.

Mr. Cryer: rose—

Mr. Burns: It would be wrong to give a blank cheque to an idea when many of my right hon. and hon Friends—and, I suspect, some Opposition Members—have genuine concerns about the nitty-gritty details of a dog registration scheme.

Mr. Butterfill: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. While we are dealing with the nitty-gritty details, will my hon. Friend agree that, if we are to have a dog registration scheme, we should need to have a power of entry into homes where it was suspected that an unregistered dog was being kept? Would not that offend hon. Members who are concerned about civil liberties?

Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has mentioned another aspect that would cause grave concern to many people.
There is another area about which there would be grave concern—perhaps not now, when the issue is being focused on, but if we had a dog registration scheme. If silicon chips were planted into dogs, many dog owners would be nervous and genuinely upset about their pets —rightly or wrongly. If there were accidents when a silicon chip was being implanted, many people would be gravely concerned, and that could be a deterrent to others.
I fully appreciate that the new clause is a well-meant attempt to help to combat the problems of stray dogs and of the irresponsible ownership of dogs. However, I fear that it is not the right measure to succeed. My right hon. Friend's proposals and other measures that are to come into force should be given the chance to work before we go down the route of a plethora of controls, bureaucracy and costs.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The House will be aware that, on previous occasions, I have been extremely critical of the proposed registration scheme. However, I recognise that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) has been flexible and accommodating in the new clause. More importantly, she has also provided for a two-year period before the Secretary of State has to lay an order. That gives an opportunity for the Government to take the action that has long been required.
I recall that 14 years ago, at the time of a Cruft's show in the late 1970s, I urged that there should be a change in the existing dog licensing scheme. The principal defect in that scheme was that people were supposed to get the licence when the puppy was six months old. Often they did not know when the puppy was six months old and by the time the puppy was six months old, they did not want it anyway so it joined the strays.
That was followed by the abolition of the halfpenny which was the fundamental cause of the confusion that the House has been tackling for the past two years. With the abolition of the halfpenny when the dog licence cost 371/2p, the Government had to decide to take action. They took action by attempting to get out from under.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and other hon. Members have frequently sought to get private Members' Bills through the House to deal with the problem. Every time hon. Members have


tried to introduce Bills on that subject, the Government have spoiled the Bills' chances by trying to ensure that all responsibility was passed from the Government to the local authorities. However, when we consider the kind of problem that has landed on the Home Office in recent months, we see that the burden of responsibility cannot and should not be passed to local authorities.
An anxiety that I have expressed in the House before is that I do not believe that the licence fee should be left entirely to local authorities. If that is the case, the fee in one area may be £10, but it might be £50 in the local authority across the road. Such a preposterously uneven situation would be unacceptable. It is possible to discern such a position under new clause 1.
According to the new clause, local authorities may determine or the Secretary of State may prescribe. That is not a particularly satisfactory part of the new clause. It should be clear that there would be sufficient pressure on the next Home Secretary—the present Home Secretary will not hold his office when these matters will have to be decided by the House—to accept that full responsibility should not be passed to local authorities.
As my earlier intervention may have shown, I have reservations about the method of identification. There are unacceptable aspects of tattooing. The hon. Member for Drake may be right: the identification chip may be a satisfactory method, but I believe that in many breeds of active dog the chip would move around the dog's body or be damaged when the dog was active.
One of my dogs is an Irish wolfhound. Although the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) suggested that Irish wolfhounds were a dangerous breed, centuries of domestication have made them safe. The hon. Member said that a four-year-old child was at risk from an Irish wolfhound. Well, several Irish wolfhounds I know would be terrified by four-year-old children.
I have used my Irish wolfhound on several occasions to demolish obstructions to public rights of way in my constituency. My dog will not jump, but he will go through an obstruction, if another dog jumps over it. We have carefully preserved rights of way on several occasions. However, when preserving those rights of way, it is perfectly possible that a chip lodged in the back of my dog's neck might be damaged or removed. I should like to see evidence that that method of identification is as reliable as some people claim. There are disputed views about that. The time allowed in the new clause for implementation of its recommendations gives us the opportunity to establish the truth.
On balance, and with great reluctance, I will support the new clause. There is an anti-dog lobby of which I am certainly not a member. However, many hon. Members have today referred to a variety of breeds of dog most of which are quite harmless in spite of the more idiotic members of our community who ruin their temperaments. Some breeds were mentioned in the same breath as those that sometimes cause problems and the fighting breeds with which the Bill seeks to deal.
My anxiety concerns clause 2. It seems that if those who object to licensing are not careful, they will force the Government into a position in which a whole host of breeds will be added to the Bill if a licensing provision is not available. My colleagues who believe that I should continue to oppose the registration of dogs might care to consider that the alternative might mean a substantial

addition to the dogs covered by clause 2. A large number of people would not wish their dogs to be covered and have no need for their dogs to be included in such a list.
As has been said, the registration of dogs will not be a panacea. The answer in the first place would have been to implement existing law before the dog licence was abolished so that people did not allow dogs to stray and so that dogs wore a collar with a name tag. Much anxiety and much time of the House would have been saved.
I shall vote for the new clause, but I give the hon. Member for Drake notice that I shall seek to ensure in the months ahead that, if it is accepted, the new clause will not impose unreasonable burdens on dog owners, particularly responsible ones, or provide excessive power to local authorities, when it should be exercised by the Government of the day. I should certainly like to be satisfied that the methods of identification will be satisfactory. The flexibility that the hon. Lady has offered the house is sufficient to bring me into the Lobby with her on this occasion, but I suspect that, when we debate the orders that will be laid under the new clause, we may find ourselves on opposite sides.

Mr. Allason: Dog registration will be no panacea. It will not guarantee sensible dog ownership or compliance with the new law, but those criticisms are no reason for the Government to shrug off their responsibilities. I broadly support the Bill—certainly clause 3, which for the first Lime will give the public the chance to act before a tragedy. Members of the public who are concerned about dangerous animals, or animals that are running loose, will be able to report an owner to magistrates and get a court order. I welcome that. The registration clause will also give wardens an additional power that they do not at present have. That, too, is to be welcomed.
The difficulty lies at the moment of purchase. There must be a disincentive for the irresponsible owner who buys on impulse. We have already heard of people who go to puppy farms or big breeders and demand a pet but within six months are disappointed with it and put their pet out to run stray. Those are the irresponsible owners at whom the new clause is aimed. It is up to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to draft suitable proposals, but the ojbective is to provide a disincentive to irresponsible owners.
I have followed the Government's position on this. Originally, they were quite prepared to support registration in Northern Ireland. Now they say that it has failed. I notice, too, that the Government originally said that they opposed registration in the rest of the United Kingdom. Now they say that they support the principle, but only for very narrow categories.
I urge the House to give full consideration and support to the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes).

Mr. John McAllion: In the short time that I have been in the House, I have taken part in several debates on dog registration. During that time, I have had to listen to some desperately poor arguments in opposition to dog registration. It would be difficult to imagine any poorer or more desperate arguments than some of those that I have heard tonight from Conservative Members. One of them argued that because my right hon. Friend the


Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) may have voted against dog registration in the dim and distant past, the House should follow his lead.
It would be difficult to find a more nonsensical argument. I remind Conservative Members that my right hon. Friend has voted against the poll tax, national health service reforms, privatisation, and almost everything else that the Government have introduced, but they have never used that as an argument for following his lead, nor should they do so now because he did or did not happen to oppose dog registration in the past.
The new clause does not lessen the importance of the Bill. It recognises that some breeds of dog are so dangerous that they have to be banned and that some breeds are so dangerous that special measures are required to be taken against them. If the Bill is to be in a fit form to become law, we must encourage a climate of responsible dog ownership. Therefore, it is important to add new clause I to the Bill.
Conservative Members have argued that dog registration will not prevent attacks of the kind we have witnessed in recent years, but I believe that the reverse is the case. The absense of a dog registration scheme sends a clear message to everyone living in the United Kingdom that the Government do not care who owns what dog—that anyone can keep any dog in any environment. If ever I heard a recipe for irresponsibility, that is it. The House of Commons ought to be sending the message to the people of this country that we want to encourage responsible dog ownership, that we want dog owners to register their dogs, that we want dog owners to pay for licences for their dogs and to show that they are capable of looking after their dogs in a responsible manner.
The Home Secretary said that only responsible dog owners would comply with the registration scheme, and that some method must be found of making irresponsible dog owners comply with the law. Every Opposition Member agrees with him about that. The Home Secretary said that less than a third of the dogs in that country had been registered under Northern Ireland's registration scheme and the system of compulsory licensing that operates there. However, he failed to tell the House that, throughout the operation of that scheme, only 158 fixed penalties had been served on people who failed to comply with the registration scheme and that only 19 people had been prosecuted for failing to comply with it. If the scheme is not enforced, it is not surprising that it is not successful. What is lacking in Northern Ireland is a willingness to ensure that the registration scheme is effective. Such a scheme could and should be made effective in this country.
At the end of the Second Reading debate, the Minister of State referred to the ineffectiveness of dog registration. She said that a register would simply record that a dog exists. That in itself is worth while. We heard that there may be 7 million, or 7·5 million, dogs in this country, that there may be 10,000 American pit bull terriers and 90,000 to 180,000 rottweilers. The truth is that nobody knows. There is no record of who owns all those dogs. If registration did nothing else, it would at least provide us with a much better idea of the size of the problem. Before trying to tackle a problem, it is worth trying to find out how big the problem is, but that idea is far too simple for the Home Secretary to take on board.
The Home Secretary gave figures to show that a dog registration scheme would be too costly. He said that it would cost £50 million per year—£23 million for the wardens and kennels, £23 million for administration and a further £4·5 million for the initial registration of dogs. I remind the Home Secretary that the absence of a dog registration scheme already costs us more than £50 million. Boarding, finding new homes for and destroying stray dogs already cost this country an estimated £6 million a year, in addition to the costs of road accidents, hospital treatment and injury to livestock. Altogether, the cost to this country of not having a dog registration scheme is £70 million.
The Home Secretary tried to sidestep that point by saying that that represents costs incurred now. Of course it does, but those costs would not need to be incurred if we had a proper registration scheme. Such a scheme would involve computer and enforcement costs, but they would be offset by savings in the costs now incurred as a result of the absence of such a scheme.

Mr. Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, by definition, a large number of strays are unwanted dogs and that the surplus dog population is causing a considerable problem which would not be addressed by registration?

Mr. McAllion: Cannot the hon. Gentleman try to understand that dogs are unwanted because we make it so easy to own them? If we made it difficult for people to buy a dog at Christmas for their children, irresponsible owners might be put off owning one. That is our argument.
One of the last arguments in opposition to a dog registration scheme came from the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), who said that such a scheme might involve the House legislating for right of entry into locked premises. I direct the hon. Gentleman's attention to clause 5(2) of the Bill for which he will be voting today, which gives authority to justices of the peace and sheriffs to issue warrants to allow entry into locked premises in pursuit of dogs which are said to be out of control. The Bill already gives that power, which the hon. Gentleman said would be unacceptable if it were required to make dog registration work. He cannot possibly defend that absurdity.

Mr. Robert Banks: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that, if someone buys a dog at Christmas and six months later the family decide to get rid of it, they will take the collar off the dog and let it go? That is the straight problem.

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) referred to a dog that was thrown out of a speeding car, simply to get rid of it. There was no collar and tag on the dog to trace the person who had thrown it out of the car. If a chip had been implanted in the back of the dog's neck, the owner could have been traced under a dog registration scheme. Why cannot Conservative Members come to terms with that fact?
This should not be a party political issue, as is clear from the names of the hon. Members who tabled the new clause. I regret that the Government have turned it into an issue of confidence in a Government who are politically weak. That should never have happened. This is a non-party issue, and the country needs hon. Members to


treat it seriously and on its merits—not on the basis of whether they belong to a particular political party. The fact that the Government have made this a party political issue will not be forgotten by people when they vote in the general election.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I am grateful for the opportunity to address this point. I have been in the Chamber from the beginning of the debate and have not left it at any time.
I oppose new clause 1. Registration is not a panacea for the dog problem, as is recognised by those who advocate it. If a dog attacks a child, it will make no difference if that dog is registered. Many hon. Members referred to the welfare of strays. Sixty per cent. of stray dogs in Northern Ireland are registered. Those in favour of registration are trying to say that a registration scheme will make dog owners totally responsible and that the behaviour of registered dogs will be different from that of unregistered dogs. That is absolute nonsense and the sooner that we recognise that, the better.
A dog registration scheme will not stop the other problem of faeces littering our parks where our children run about and pick up what the dogs have left behind, and nor will such a scheme make dog owners more law-abiding, as has been suggested by those who support the provisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) suggested, such a scheme would be no more than a canine poll tax, bringing with it a bureaucratic nightmare that would become more and more expensive as time goes on. The essence of a good law is that it is enforceable. The more holes there are in the system, the more difficult it will be to enforce, the more disreputable it will become, and the less and less likely it is to be effective.
12.45 am
The existing law, with its collar and tag and recognition provisions, is satisfactory. If it is properly applied and enforced and backed with the provisions of this Bill, the situation will improve. The provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will come into force in a few months and will strengthen the way in which we can deal with dogs. The only dog registration scheme that has any credibility is one that provides for a dog to be registered at the point of purchase, but even that can fall on its face because of the many breeders who produce dogs but are not shopkeepers or properly registered breeders.
A dog registration scheme will not work. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare. It would be an insult to the responsible dog owners who would pay, yet it would not catch those who would not. That is why I shall vote against it with confidence.

Mr. Robin Corbett: The right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), when he managed to spare the time to be with us, asked what a register would do. Had he stayed long enough, he would have heard his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary say that it would enable the police and others to know exactly where pit bull terriers or other prescribed dangerous dogs lived, and the name of the recorded owner. The Home Secretary has therefore conceded the argument for a dog registration scheme, but he wants it to be narrow in its scope.
The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) and some of his hon. Friends have said that a registration

scheme would be a bureaucratic nightmare, but they do not say that about firearms, motor vehicles or television sets, even when they know that compliance will not be 100 per cent. That is because, when the House rules that such things should be registered, we also arm the Home Secretary of the day with enforcement measures.
Many of the attacks on the proposition of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) have been on the grounds of hon. Members' notions about particular dog registration schemes, but that is not what we are talking about. As the German Shepherd Dog League of Great Britain has said, it is possible to have a scheme that does not apply to existing dogs. The league argues that as each puppy is born, it should be registered immediately. In parallel, it should be made an offence to possess entire males unless that is sanctioned under the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973. That is one way of doing it. Over 10 years, the problem could be solved. I hope that the Home Secretary understands that we are discussing the new clause, and not my ideas or anybody else's about what might happen. If the right hon. Gentleman could get that into his head, he might better understand the arguments of his hon. Friend the Member for Drake.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Two policy documents have been produced by the Labour party in favour of dog registration. The authors owe it to the country to explain exactly what dog registration will mean, the level of the fee and whether it would be self-financing or subsidised. Could we have some answers?

Mr. Corbett: I ask the Home Secretary to be patient. I ask him also to get it between his ears that we are discussing new clause 1.
It has been argued that a national dog registration scheme would not stop attacks on children and others, and that is right. No one—not even the Home Secretary—claimed that the firearms legislation could prevent another Hungerford, although it is to be hoped that it has made it less likely. Such arguments about the responsible ownership of firearms under a licensing system also apply to a responsible system of dog ownership.
To put the Home Secretary's question to me in a nutshell, "How much is that doggie in the window?" It has been put to him two or three times, most recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), that on a conservative estimate the lack of a national registration scheme costs at least £70 million a year.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Rubbish.

Mr. Corbett: The Foreign Secretary tempts me, but I shall not be diverted because of the time constraint.
As I have said, it is estimated that the lack of a national registration scheme costs about £70 million a year, so we have that money to work with. I give an undertaking on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and myself that when my right hon. and hon. Friends form the next Government we shall produce a specific dog registration scheme, and put a price tag upon it.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): The new clause is directed to the control of dogs that are not otherwise regulated, and that is how my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J.


Fookes) introduced it. Much has been said about responsible ownership and the introduction of legislation that will control dogs. I remind the Committee, as did my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), of existing legislation. First, we have the Animal Health Act 1982, which provides that everyone who has a dog should cause it to wear a tag that bears the dog's name and that of its owner. If the dog does not wear a tag, the owner is liable for a fine of £2,000. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides for a scheme to be introduced next April that will deal, among other things, with the extremely important problem of strays.
With those two pieces of legislation we have provided that all dogs must carry the name and address of their owners. Through local authorities, wardens will have authority to collect strays. Accordingly, strays will no longer be a problem. The same legislation takes care of the fouling of public places and of areas being limited for dogs. It answers the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Drake for the control of dogs that are not otherwise regulated.
We have heard much about a dog registration scheme, but I have not heard one argument that has convinced me that enforcement would be better through such a scheme than through current legislation. Nothing will make the irresponsible owner licence his dog. Nor is there anything that will prevent a registration scheme being extremely expensive and bureaucratic and from producing harassment and complications that would not be right or proper. I have considerable reservations about the notion of tattooing or chipping dogs so that we can trace their owners. Indeed, some Opposition Members have expressed considerable reservation about such schemes.
The most frightening argument that has been advanced by Opposition Members is that they would like a registration scheme introduced because that would enable them to trace people who had dogs. It seems that they might even go further and say that only those who they think are the right people should own dogs. That is the slippery path down which the Opposition want to lead us. Given some of the frightening views expressed it makes me wonder whether we are listening to the views of those who are dog lovers or dog haters. Some Opposition Members would like to dictate how many dogs people should have, let alone whether they should have a dog, and how much it should cost.
I hope that my hon. Friends have listened carefully to the arguments that have been put. I hope that they will consider carefully the implications of introducing an expensive, difficult and bureaucratic dog registration scheme on top of existing legislation.

Dame Janet Fookes: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has sought to dissuade me from my course of action by citing several reasons, with which I shall deal briefly.
First, my right hon. Friend suggested that the cost of the registration would be great and he offered various figures taken from the LSE research document. The highest figure of £60 million works out at under £10 a dog. I do not believe that that is such a ghastly amount as suggested.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend sought to say that the Bill and existing legislation are adequate to meet the problem, without a dog registration scheme. I hope that I have summarised my right hon. Friend's argument correctly. However, the duty of enforcement will fall largely on the local authorities. It is the environmental health officer, the dog wardens and the Association of District Councils who say that they want and need a dog registration scheme as the mechanism by which to carry out their duties. If I were asked to believe either my right hon. Friends—good and excellent they may be—or those who must carry out that duty on a daily basis, I would believe those who have that daily responsibility.
Anyone would think that the dog registration scheme was some strange scheme that we were pioneering. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned certain countries, but he was careful to list those countries that are not notable for being particularly law-abiding in any sense.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Spain?

Dame Janet Fookes: Yes, Spain is one such example. I suggest that he should study Germany, Sweden, Australia and Canada. They all operate effective registration schemes.
If owners are required to register when they acquire a dog and to pay a fee for so doing, they immediately commit an offence if they do not. Those who must enforce the law want that first step of enforcement—dog registration—at their disposal. In that way one does not have to wait for another offence to be committed, such as fouling, fighting or anything else. The registration scheme is a ready-made arrangement upon which dog wardens and the police can rely.
My right hon. Friend also spoke about tags. He will be aware that I have advocated a permanent system of identification. That means that if the collar and tag are lost one is still able to identify the dog. That mechanism, more than anything else, would mean that we would be able to track down irresponsible owners. That would result in more responsibility. A collar and tag is also of great value to those owners who want to look after their dogs as they are much more easily found if they have such identification.
I advocate the clause strongly and I hope that the House will support me.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Whichever way the vote goes, I believe that the House is agreed that we need a climate of responsibility.
One of the greatest problems with registration is that, when someone is assaulted by an animal they know, registration does not help. When someone is bitten by a dog that runs away, registration does not help. It gets away from the point that was well put by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), who said that there are far too many dogs in urban areas that are not cared for responsibly.
I do not believe that the registration scheme is the answer, but we should have sympathy with the RSPCA. It has to put down thousands of dogs each week. I believe that if owners could think about the end of their dog's life rather than just about its beginning we would have a better climate—with or without registration, which I intend to vote against—for dogs and human beings.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 260, Noes 303.

Division No. 161]
[12.59 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Allason, Rupert
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Allen, Graham
Fatchett, Derek


Alton, David
Faulds, Andrew


Anderson, Donald
Fearn, Ronald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Armstrong, Hilary
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fisher, Mark


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Flynn, Paul


Ashton, Joe
Fookes, Dame Janet


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foster, Derek


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Foulkes, George


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Fraser, John


Barron, Kevin
Fyfe, Maria


Battle, John
Galbraith, Sam


Beckett, Margaret
Gale, Roger


Beith, A. J.
Galloway, George


Bell, Stuart
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Bellotti, David
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Bendall, Vivian
George, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n amp; R'dish)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Benton, Joseph
Gordon, Mildred


Bermingham, Gerald
Gould, Bryan


Blair, Tony
Graham, Thomas


Blunkett, David
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Boateng, Paul
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Boyes, Roland
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bradley, Keith
Grocott, Bruce


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hain, Peter


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hardy, Peter


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Browne, John (Winchester)
Haynes, Frank


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Caborn, Richard
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Callaghan, Jim
Henderson, Doug


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hogg, N. (C'nauld amp; Kilsyth)


Canavan, Dennis
Home Robertson, John


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hood, Jimmy


Carr, Michael
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cartwright, John
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Howells, Geraint


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clay, Bob
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Illsley, Eric


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Ingram, Adam


Corbett, Robin
Irving, Sir Charles


Corbyn, Jeremy
Janner, Greville


Cox, Tom
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Barry (Alyn amp; Deeside)


Cummings, John
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cunningham, Dr John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dalyell, Tarn
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Darling, Alistair
Kennedy, Charles


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kilfedder, James


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Kirkwood, Archy


Dewar, Donald
Lambie, David


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lamond, James


Dixon, Don
Leadbitter, Ted


Dobson, Frank
Leighton, Ron


Doran, Frank
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dover, Den
Lewis, Terry


Duffy, A. E. P.
Litherland, Robert


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Livingstone, Ken


Eastham, Ken
Livsey, Richard


Edwards, Huw
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)





Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Robertson, George


Loyden, Eddie
Rogers, Allan


McAllion, John
Rooker, Jeff


McAvoy, Thomas
Rooney, Terence


McCartney, Ian
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


McFall, John
Rossi, Sir Hugh


McKay, Allen (Barnsiey West)
Rowlands, Ted


McKelvey, William
Ruddock, Joan


McLeish, Henry
Salmond, Alex


Maclennan, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


McMaster, Gordon
Sheerman, Barry


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McNamara, Kevin
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McWilliam, John
Short, Clare


Madden, Max
Sillars, Jim


Marek, Dr John
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton amp; F'bury)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Maxton, John
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Meacher, Michael
Snape, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Soley, Clive


Michael, Alun
Spearing, Nigel


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Speller, Tony


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l amp; Bute)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Miscampbell, Norman
Steinberg, Gerry


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Stott, Roger


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Strang, Gavin


Morgan, Rhodri
Straw, Jack


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mudd, David
Turner, Dennis


Mullin, Chris
Vaz, Keith


Murphy, Paul
Wallace, James


Nellist, Dave
Walley, Joan


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


O'Brien, William
Wareing, Robert N.


O'Hara, Edward
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


O'Neill, Martin
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Parry, Robert
Wigley, Dafydd


Patchett, Terry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Pendry, Tom
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Pike, Peter L.
Wilson, Brian


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Winnick, David


Prescott, John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Primarolo, Dawn
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wolfson, Mark


Radice, Giles
Worthington, Tony


Randall, Stuart
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Redmond, Martin



Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Tellers for the Ayes:


Reid, Dr John
Mr. Michael J. Martin and.


Richardson, Jo
Mr. Alan Meale.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Body, Sir Richard


Aitken, Jonathan
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Alexander, Richard
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Boswell, Tim


Amess, David
Bottomley, Peter


Amos, Alan
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Arbuthnot, James
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Bowis, John


Ashby, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Atkins, Robert
Brazier, Julian


Atkinson, David
Bright, Graham


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brown, Michael (Brigg amp; Cl't's)


Baldry, Tony
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Batiste, Spencer
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Budgen, Nicholas


Bellingham, Henry
Burns, Simon


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Burt, Alistair


Benyon, W.
Butcher, John


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Butler, Chris


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Butterfill, John






Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hill, James


Carrington, Matthew
Hind, Kenneth


Carttiss, Michael
Hordern, Sir Peter


Cash, William
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howarth, G. (Cannock amp; B'wd)


Chapman, Sydney
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Chope, Christopher
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Churchill, Mr
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunt, Rt Hon David


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Hunter, Andrew


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Colvin, Michael
Irvine, Michael


Conway, Derek
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jackson, Robert


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Janman, Tim


Cope, Rt Hon John
Jessel, Toby


Cran, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Curry, David
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd amp; Spald'g)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Key, Robert


Day, Stephen
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Devlin, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Dicks, Terry
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dorrell, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, David


Eggar, Tim
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Emery, Sir Peter
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Latham, Michael


Evennett, David
Lawrence, Ivan


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fallon, Michael
Lee, John (Pendle)


Favell, Tony
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Field, Barry (Isle ol Wight)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forman, Nigel
Lord, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Forth, Eric
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Fox, Sir Marcus
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Freeman, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


French, Douglas
Maclean, David


Gardiner, Sir George
McLoughlin, Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gill, Christopher
Madel, David


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Major, Rt Hon John


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Malins, Humfrey


Goodlad, Alastair
Mans, Keith


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Maples, John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marland, Paul


Gorst, John
Marlow, Tony


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gregory, Conal
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grist, Ian
Mates, Michael


Ground, Patrick
Maude, Hon Francis


Grylls, Michael
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hague, William
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Miller, Sir Hal


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hanley, Jeremy
Mitchell, Sir David


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Moate, Roger


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Monro, Sir Hector


Harris, David
Moore, Rt Hon John


Haselhurst, Alan
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hawkins, Christopher
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hayes, Jerry
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Moss, Malcolm


Hayward, Robert
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Needham, Richard 


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Nelson, Anthony





Neubert, Sir Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Squire, Robin


Nicholls, Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Steen, Anthony


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stern, Michael


Norris, Steve
Stevens, Lewis


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Page, Richard
Stewart, Rt Hon lan (Herts N)


Paice, James
Stokes, Sir John


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Sumberg, David


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Pawsey, James
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thorne, Neil


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thornton, Malcolm


Portillo, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Price, Sir David
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Tracey, Richard


Rathbone, Tim
Tredinnick, David


Redwood, John
Trippier, David


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Trotter, Neville


Rhodes James, Robert
Twinn, Dr Ian


Riddick, Graham
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)
Walden, George


Roe, Mrs Marion
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Rost, Peter
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Rowe, Andrew
Waller, Gary


Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Ward, John


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sackville, Hon Tom
Watts, John


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Wells, Bowen


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wheeler, Sir John


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Whitney, Ray


Shaw, David (Dover)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wilkinson, John


Shelton, Sir William
Wilshire, David


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wood, Timothy


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Yeo, Tim


Shersby, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sims, Roger



Skeet, Sir Trevor
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Mr. David Lightbown and


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Mr. John M. Taylor.


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

DOGS BRED FOR FIGHTING

Mr. Robin Corbett: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 6, at end insert
'any dog of the type known as a rottweiler;'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 30, in page 1, line 9, leave out from 'State' to end of line 11.
No. 3, in page 1, line 10, after 'fighting', insert 'or aggressiveness'.
No. 4, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'that purpose' and insert 'those purposes'.

Mr. Corbett: 1 should explain to the Minister immediately that this is very much a probing amendment.


Like other hon. Members, we have received representations from the Rottweiler Society, and we have listened carefully to what has been said. None the less, some of our constituents do not immediately understand how the Government can single out pit bull terriers for treatment as a special category when there are—[Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber please do so quickly and quietly?

Mr. Corbett: Thank you, Mr. Walker. I know that the House will be grateful to you.
As I was saying, some of our constituents do not understand why the Government propose to take action, on grounds of dangerousness, against 10,000 pit bull terriers while treating the 100,000 rottweilers in this country differently and, to that extent, at least seemingly judging them less dangerous. As I said earlier, we also have in Britain about 100,000 doberman pinschers and 100,000 Staffordshire terriers—also known as "Staffies", as you, Mr. Walker, will be aware.
On amendment No. 3, I want to ask the Minister on what basis the Government were able to decide that there was a real distinction between dogs that they describe as having been bred for fighting, and dogs such as the rottweiler which arguably—I do not think that anybody can controvert this—were originally bred for their aggressiveness. Fortunately, most of us have only seen on film the part that rottweilers played as guard dogs in Nazi concentration camps, but we are none the less alive to the views of those of our constituents who have raised this matter, especially in relation to rottweilers.
I am not trying to score points off the Minister, but I must add that matters are not helped by the fact that the rottweiler is a registered breed and, to that extent, a very pure breed, and large numbers of the dogs are registered by the Kennel Club. The pit bull terrier cannot be registered in that way because it started life as a cross-breed. Heaven alone knows what 57 varieties of genes are in the species or type known as a pit bull.
Having said that, as I think the Minister of State knows, a number of hon. Members have had some difficulty in going along with the Government in making that distinction in the first place. In all honesty, we are glad that the Government have not followed up what would seem to be the logic of that in the Bill by naming other breeds or species of dogs. It has to be said, and it is certainly being said by large numbers of animal welfare and veterinary organisations, that to proceed on a breed by breed or species by species basis does not fit the bill.
The House was told earlier that about three quarters of all serious attacks on people recorded in the Metropolitan police area last year were not by pit bull terriers—about 90 breeds or species of dogs were responsible for three quarters of recorded serious attacks. I do not know whether the Minister of State can comment on the fact that I am also led to believe that it has not been standard practice for police forces to record the breed or species of dog concerned in a serious attack.
A reminder of the problems associated with this part of the Bill is a letter in The Veterinary Record of 1 June 1991 by Mr. J. G. Matthews of New London road, Chelmsford, Essex, whom I take to be a vet, although I must make it immediately clear that I am not advertising on his behalf. His signature appears under the letter, which the House may find instructive:

Twelve years ago the country was warned that the introduction of the breed would lead to problems in the future but the advice went unheeded and subsequently the breed has become well established in the southern half of the United Kingdom, although it has failed to establish itself in the north and has been on the decline in Scotland.
A series of behavioural studies has shown that although generally docile (they are often seen with young children and babies), they will react irrationally and violently when stressed or backed into corners. It must be remembered that they are essentially a pack animal, responding to strong leadership, but generally acting in the interests of self-preservation.

Mr. Philip Oppenheim: That sounds like the Labour party.

Mr. Corbett: The hon. Gentleman should wait.
The letter continues:
The public were particularly shocked by a series of televised fights between members of the breed in November last year which left them licking their wounds in public.
The past 12 years have seen a huge increase in the number of attacks by the breed. These include the savaging of manufacturing industry, vicious assaults on the National Health Service and indeed a tax on every adult member of the community.
Surely, now is the time to respond to the overwhelming demands for action. Experience in other countries has shown that attempts to gag and muzzle members in public will not be effective so the only alternative would appear to be the humane destruction of Conservative members of Parliament.
Perhaps that answers the point made by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim).
That is a facetious point, but I know that the Minister of State understands it. However, it would be to the benefit of the House and to large numbers of people outside it if she could let us in on the process by which the Home Office formed the opinion that at first—1 gather from what was said in the earlier part of the debate that there would be some reluctance all round to add any further breeds or types of this special category—it was sensible and safe simply to put pit bull terriers into this special category and no other types.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am grateful for the chance to add to the brief speech that I made in the previous debate. I shall try not to stray too far out of order.
Amendment No. 5 is a probing amendment on whether rottweilers should be added to the most dangerous category. I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Minister will say that clause 1 will work, even though it does not look too good. The problem with going too far and including almost every animal that may have been included in the list of 90 that were recorded as being involved in serious attacks is that it may look good but it will not work. Once one tries to go too far, the system breaks down. It is essential, as in other areas of casualty reduction, to focus on the major problem and, if necessary, to be willing to extend it to other areas.
I know well from my constituency, where the postal delivery service was suspended following many attacks, that the range of dogs involved in attacks can be broad. Our approach must include the protection of people involved in postal deliveries, meter readers, refuse collectors, children and other visitors.
Rottweilers were fashionable in the media two years ago. Even if rottweilers are not included as a clause 1 breed, their owners must pick up the common thread of the previous debate. What matters is not that we have disposed of a dog registration scheme or whether we add rottweilers to clause 1, but whether we can achieve an


approach that is not focused on legislative rows and arguments but is a common thread among all hon. Members and animal welfare organisations.
We must recognise that, as well as fighting dogs, there are biting dogs, many of which are kept at home. Although muzzling would not stop a child being bitten in someone's home, it would deal with what one calls the bit-and-run dog.
The major issue is whether we can stop the inexorable rise in the number of dogs and in people's desire for more and more aggressive-looking or aggressive dogs. Ordinary families should not feel that they must have an aggressive dog to deter burglars, would-be burglars or people who may assault them on the streets. We must deal with that problem, and if we do so those who want an animal for a companion may instead have a cat, a newt or a stick insect. That is not a serious suggestion, but there are up to 7 million or 8 million dogs now, whereas 10 or 15 years ago there were 3 million or 4 million. That shows that people have used some of their prosperity or fears to add to the number of dogs in urban areas.
Anyone who proposes to own a dog in an urban area must look at themselves in the mirror and ask how they will deal with the mess. I have watched wheelchair travellers, children and blind and partially sighted people trying to negotiate the mess on our pavements. Dog owners, whether they are lighthouse keepers—people who have a dog on a lead but look out to sea while the dog does its business behind them—or those who push the dog out, should tell wheelchair travellers, partially sighted people or children where their dog's mess will be laid and where their dogs will be left. If we can deal with the issues of aggression, the mess and the number of dogs, I suspect that these debates will have been worth while.
I believe that the Home Office Ministers have done well in introducing the Bill, which is a response to welfare organisations and dog owners. I hope that we shall see speedy progress and I suspect that the rottweiler will not be added to the clause 1 list.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I support the probing amendment. I have spoken to senior dog handlers with Strathclyde police. They have handled dogs all their working lives and, generally, show no fear of large dogs. The information that I have been given is that rottweilers can weigh more than 10 stone. The cause of worry is not only their weight but the bone structure around the jaw and their muscle tissue.
I understand that a professor at Aberdeen university is studying rottweilers. He has come up with some evidence that there is a serious problem in the character of the dogs as they are being bred. I use those words because I came across rottweilers eight or nine years ago before the breed was famous. Most of those dogs were gentle because the owners, realising that they should get a large dog for the security of their homes, wanted a dog that was placid, but which would look the part even if it did no more than bark. Nowadays, the alsatian breeders have got their act together and they are ensuring that the highly nervous strains are not continued in the breed. However, the reverse is the case with the rottweiler. Many breeders seek to get aggressive bitches and aggressive dogs, and breed from them.
1.30 am
Normally when a dog becomes aggressive, or is about to become aggressive, some warning is given, and a growl or some other sign gives a human being a chance to get out of the situation. However, police officers say that rottweilers can go from being docile to being very aggressive within seconds. That is a frightening feature of those dogs.
An alsatian attacking a human being is bad enough, but if a dog that weighs in excess of 10 stone with a lot of power in its jaws gets hold of someone, there are serious problems.

Ms. Joyce Quin: I want to reinforce my hon. Friend's point about the rapid transformation of the behaviour of the dogs. In my own constituency a few weeks ago, a rottweiler attacked a three-year-old boy, Graham Pilkington, and as a result, the boy needed eight stitches in his neck. The circumstances seem to have been as my hon. Friend described. The dog suddenly turned nasty, with almost no warning.

Mr. Martin: We hear such stories all the time. The child was lucky to get away with eight stitches. It could have been worse: the injury to the neck could easily have killed the child.
Dogs, as part of the animal kingdom, can behave aggressively in many ways. A child could get between the dog and its food or between the dog and its litter. Such actions can make a dog become aggressive. However, it does not help if the dog is highly nervous and easily provoked in the first place.
I hope that the Minister will take on board the fact that police officers are becoming concerned that, if rottweilers get out of hand and become aggressive, they are not equipped to handle them. A dog handler in Strathclyde, or anywhere else, would think nothing of trying to control a labrador or any other dog—even an alsatian or a doberman—that gets out of hand. However, they see that the only way in which they could bring a rottweiler under control would be for one officer, dressed in so much padding that he would look ridiculous and like a Michelin man, to allow himself to be attacked in the hope that a veterinarian would be on hand with a tranquiliser.
I do not know whether the Minister of State can confirm this, but I understand that vets carry an antidote to the tranquilisers because they have only five minutes in which to administer an antidote if they scratch themselves with the drug. What a society we live in when we must go to those ridiculous lengths to control a certain breed. If what I have described is true, should not the Minister consider categorising rottweilers in the same way as pit bull terriers?

Mr. Cryer: As the Government have, with smirks on their faces, defeated dog registration, we must use the provisions in the Bill. Certain dogs will be banned and amendment No. 5 seeks to include rottweilers in that list. The Secretary of State can make exemptions and impose those conditions that he considers prudent. Dogs may be kept, but there would have to be a form of registration and the imposition of standards. In general, a dog registration scheme would have achieved that.
What are the Government going to do about the dogs which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) described as very powerful? On 7 May, five-year-old Michael Parkinson was savaged by


two rottweilers near his Bradford home. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) said that, in a similar accident, a young child required eight stitches in its neck. Five-year-old Michael Parkinson required 80 stitches. On 15 May, Pat Lord, who is 39, underwent microsurgery after her right arm was chewed to the bone and broken by her rottweiler. That adult and child suffered serious injuries which only by a fluke did not result in death. However, deaths will occur sooner or later, because the dogs that we are considering are bought for their power and potential viciousness.
People buy those dogs because of the rise in crime. They are bought from unscrupulous dealers who raise them in appalling confined conditions. The dogs are not trained and they are bought by people who want them as symbols of protection. They also do not train them and occasionally those dogs turn either on their owners or on casual visitors or people who call for specific purposes, such as milkmen, postmen, social workers or nurses.
I remind the Minister of State that I had an Adjournment debate shortly before the Whitsun recess in which I described how a headmaster at a school in my constituency took a small 10-year-old boy home from school. He did that as an act of kindness because the boy was not feeling well. When they arrived at the house, a rottweiler broke loose, knocked the headmaster to the ground, broke his arm and savaged him so badly that he was off work for three months. That is what happened to a mature adult who was helping a small child.
The family concerned were extremely irresponsible. As the dog was put down, no prosecution was brought. The following day the family bought a doberman as a replacement for the rottweiler, to accompany their other two rottweilers. Fortunately, the family have now disappeared from the area. The woman ran two massage parlours and the husband had no apparent source of income. Clearly, they were not the most responsible family one could bring to mind, but the Bill does not touch them. I am concerned that such people create difficulties.
Terry Singh, the head dog warden in Bradford, does a good job. There are only half a dozen dog wardens in Bradford—with a population of 500,000 people and an area between 20 and 40 miles across—and they are greatly concerned about dogs such as rottweilers. Presumably the Minister of State will say that, under clause 3(4), an order can be made under section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871 to keep dogs under control. Unfortunately, such action is always retrospective—after an accident has occurred. I understand that the Bradford dog warden scheme is among the best in the country. Indeed, some local authorities do not operate dog warden schemes at all. Dog wardens do not want to react to dog attacks or stray dogs that threaten adults or children—they want to be able to educate and encourage owners in the proper conduct of the ownership of their dogs.
I hope that the amendment is at least accepted in the spirit that, even if it has one or two flaws, the Government will consider something similar for inclusion in the other place and include potentially dangerous dogs such as doberman pinchers and alsations. As the Minister of State knows, I have read a list of accidents that have occurred over the past few months. The only one in which a death occurred involved an alsation. The male owner was savaged to death while his wife tried vainly to rescue him from the savage onslaught of their previously pet dog.
Dangerous dogs are of concern, particularly in urban areas. We appreciate that the Government have taken some action, but the problem still remains because the Bill does not address the wider problem. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) pointed out, 25 per cent. of major accidents in the past 12 months in London necessitating hospitalisation of the victims were committed by American pit bull terriers. That means that 75 per cent. were not, and the bill does not touch that 75 per cent. The amendment is probing the Minister of State to find out what the Government intend to do. I certainly look forward to hearing her comments.

Mr. McAllion: I shall also do a spot of probing in respect of the Government's attitude to rottweilers. The Bill singles out and bans only fighting breeds. The Home Secretary justified that course of action because the threat of fighting dogs presented a different degree of seriousness from other breeds of dog. The Minister of State knows that rottweilers are capable of attacks of unparalleled ferocity. She knows also that rottweilers are very unpredictable. The two dogs that killed my constituent were the same dogs as she had taken out on every day of her holiday and had previously posed no threat to her. In those circumstances, no one would have had any reason to assume that the dogs posed any threat to the girl. No one knows why the dogs suddenly turned and killed.
Although I accept that rottweilers are not bred like fighting dogs to kill and that that is not part of their nature, they still present an awesome threat. Is it the home Secretary's intention to include rottweilers in the measures concerning other especially dangerous dogs? If that is his intention, is he fully satisfied that the only restriction that should be placed upon them is that they should be kept on a leash and muzzled in public? In an article in Dog World, the rottweiler breeder Mary MacPhail stressed the need to socialise and train rottweilers, to enable them to fit into society:
Breeders must realise that they have a special responsibility to screen rigorously in order to ensure the proper placement of puppies in homes with owners who are able to understand their character and who have the time and inclination to train and exercise them.
The Bill contains no provision that would enable rottweiler owners to be properly screened. The Rottweiler Society will, I am sure, do all that is within its power to ensure that that happens, but there are back-street breeders who will sell those dogs to almost anyone. I want to know what the Government intend to do about that problem.

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said that these were probing amendments. His first point related to the definition of fighting dogs in clause 1. He well knows that the purpose of clause 1 is to prohibit dogs that are bred specifically for fighting. Both he and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that they were not pressing for rottweilers and other dogs to be included at this stage in the definition of dogs bred for fighting. Indeed, they could not be, because they are not bred for that purpose. The Government do not consider that prohibiting the ownership of rottweilers can be justified, because they are not fighting dogs. Therefore, such a prohibition should not apply to them.
I take note of what both the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) have said. Provision is made, in exceptional circumstances, for the Secretary of State to use his reserve powers in clause 2 to impose both muzzling and leashing conditions on all dogs of any type, if he considers that that type of dog could be a serious danger to the public. It is important to note that the provisions of clause 2 apply to a whole breed.
Moreover, clause 3(4) enables the courts to declare that an order under section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871 could be made where a dog is shown to have caused injury to a person and to specify the measures to be taken for keeping the dog under proper control, whether by muzzling, or by keeping it on a lead, or by excluding it from specified places, or otherwise. May I point out to the hon. Member for Bradford, South that it is possible for people to make such an application before there is an attack? If people are concerned about a neighbour's dog—believing that it might be dangerous—they can apply, under subsection (4), for assistance.
The hon. Member for Erdington also asked me about dogs that are bred not specifically for fighting but because they have aggressive tendencies. A few interesting contributions have been made, including that of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) who is particularly concerned about the way in which some dogs are bred. If that becomes a problem in the case of dogs other than American pit bull terriers, whose immense shoulder and jaw strength can cause immense harm to human beings and other dogs, the Home Secretary will be able to implement the provisions of clause 2 and order that such a breed should be muzzled and kept on a leash in public at all times.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Is the right hon. Lady saying that hon. Members and members of the general public will have to quote cases showing a pattern of these dogs attacking people? It appears from the evidence of muscle structure and capability that there are more placid and less dangerous creatures locked up in zoos, yet the Home Secretary will allow these dogs to walk the face of the earth until the public can prove they are becoming a danger.

Mrs. Rumbold: It is important to deal with aggressive dogs case by case, or we would automatically have to look at rottweilers as a complete breed. Rather than having a draconian provision applying to a substantial number of dogs, there should be a provision that affects only a small number of dogs specifically kept at a particular place, not rottweilers across the country. If the hon. Gentleman would like to pursue this matter and to send us further evidence, we would certainly consider it.

Mr. McAllion: I should like to be clear about the Government's intention. The Minister says that they will use the clause 2 powers to categorise the entire rottweiler breed as a specially dangerous breed. Is that correct?

Mrs. Rumbold: There would have to be specific reasons that would cause the Home Secretary to use his reserve powers under clause 2 and impose muzzling and leashing conditions on all dogs of any type if he considered that they presented a danger to the public. I am not saying exactly what the hon. Gentleman says; I am saying that

that would come about, with care, only in exceptional circumstances, after evidence, consultation and the approval of both Houses of Parliament. There would have to be further debate on the matter, but the provision exists. If everyone considers that there is sufficient cause for alarm, the Home Secretary can use that power. It will enable him to impose a specified restriction on dogs deemed to present a serious danger to the public. It is an important measure.

Mr. Michael Lord: We are talking about breeds other than the pit bull terrier—dobermans, rottweilers and perhaps alsatians. It has been pointed out several times that all those breeds have track records of being dangerous dogs and doing a great deal of damage. Although it would perhaps be draconian to undertake the suggested measures, they would involve only leashes, which the owners already possess, and muzzles, which are not expensive. That would be a small price to pay for the safety of all those people who are in danger.
Mauling is not the only issue. I believe that many people are afraid of using public places, such as beaches, because they see a rottweiler or alsatian being exercised there. It may be draconian to suggest that all these breeds should be included in the legislation. Leashes and muzzles are not expensive for owners, although they might slightly dent the macho image.

Mrs. Rumbold: Indeed. I do not disagree with my hon. Friend's comments. A few days ago, a lady came to see me to discuss controlling alsatians. She had an alsatian which had not one but two muzzles on it. She proceeded to take them off as soon as she got into my office, but that is another matter. The dog was extremely well behaved and, I am happy to say, caused no concern either to me or to its owner.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said, society has an unfortunate image, in that the dogs that we are concerned about have been purchased by a small minority of people for the purpose of giving them the image of people who require extra protection or who are aggressive. Any society that contains people who feel that they need to own dogs that are aggressive in both looks and nature is itself slightly questionable.
From April 1992, the Environmental Protection Act 1990, about which my hon. Friend spoke during the registration of dogs debate, will provide an adequate solution to some of these problems. It will be administered by local councils and the London boroughs and their dog wardens, and will ensure that the environment generally is much cleaner and that stray dogs are no longer allowed to roam. Some of the problems to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham referred will therefore be taken care of. However, the answer to the problem of controlling aggressive dogs is contained in other provisions in the Bill, such as the stiff penalties that will be introduced for owners who do not properly control their dogs.
We do not believe that there is a case at present for imposing blanket controls on any breed or for the drastic step of banning breeds in the way in which we shall prohibit the ownership of pit bull terriers. Such a ban would involve the destruction of a tremendous number of large dogs, many of which have not caused any harm. Clause 1 will protect the public against fighting dogs, while


the other clauses will protect dogs that might be considered aggressive, but only a few of which are likely to cause harm.

Mr. Corbett: Although I shall not flog the point, this is one of the areas on which we could have had a good deal more discussion if we had had a proper Committee stage. We are in our present dilemma because the Government have chosen to make a distinction between dogs t. are bred for fighting and other dogs tnat can, on occasions, be dangerous although they are not bred specifically for fighting.
Even at this late stage, and before the Bill goes to another place, perhaps the Minister will consider that there is a second category, including rottweilers, alsatians and dobermans, for which we could consider establishing some test of competence for owners. I know that there will be objections to the idea, but we lay down similar tests before we allow people to drive cars and we make an assessment of competence before people can get anywhere near having a shotgun licence or a firearms certificate.
I understand that it sounds awfully bureaucratic, but if, as I am sure we all accept, our real business is to encourage more responsible dog ownership, there should be the expectation that, irrespective of the breed of dog, the owner is competent to make the trained dog obey a few simple commands such as "sit", "heel" and "go". There could, for example, be a competence certificate, which could be part of third-party insurance cover. I understand that some breed societies run such schemes and that they can attest to the competence of registered owners. In such circumstances insurance companies might care to offer a discount.
Some of us have received representations from those who are responsible for the training and provision of guide dogs for the blind, and we are reminded of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). Many alsatians or German shepherds, as well as labradors, are used to assist those who are blind the better to get around. If alsatians or German shepherds were added to the specially dangerous list, it would make it virtually impossible for such dogs to be used to assist the blind. If the attachment were to be made, the entire breed would be stigmatised.
I am sure that the Minister of State will understand that because of the hour at which the debate is taking place what the Home Secretary said about the coming into effect of some important sections of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 next year may not have sunk home as well as it might have done had our exchanges been taking place at 3 pm, for example, rather than 2 am.
2 am
It is no part of my brief to try to persuade my right hon. and hon. Friends of the importance of what the Minister of State was saying, but I think that she was right to draw attention to clause 3(4), which allows orders to be made against dogs before they have caused injury. Many of us have received representations, especially over the weekend, from those who feel that they are in danger, irrespective of the breed of dog that is involved. The individual thinks, "There's that great dog down there and one of these days he will attack my kids."
There are dogs that are not under proper control, which have had inadequate training and are not regularly and properly exercised. Such dogs can be in the vicinity of

primary schools, old people's day centres and centres for the disabled, and their presence can terrify. In addition, there is the daily terror of many thousands of those who are responsible for delivering our mail. They know damn well that the moment that they put their hand on the gate of No. 53, as I think the Home Secretary said, the dog will go bananas. It may have been doing it for years, and perhaps to that extent the postman has become used to the experience. At the back of his mind, however, is the feeling that, as sure as God made little chickens, one of these days someone will have forgotten to put the bolt on the side gate and the brute will get out.
I say especially to my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) that the provision in clause 3 that is designed to enable people to go to the courts before a dog has had what used to be referred to as his one bite, to seek to get the animal under proper control, is an important one. I hope that the Minister of State will think about these matters before the Bill arrives in another place. In the expectation that she will do that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Stuart Randall: 1 beg to move amendment No. 6, in clause 1, page I. line 20, after 'lead', insert—
`( ) allow such a dog of which he is the owner to be kept in insecure conditions in and around the place where the owner is residing;'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 9, in clause 3, page 3, line 16, after 'place', insert
'or in any other place where it has, or is likely to become, a danger to a member of the public'.
No. 14, in clause 8, page 6, line 30, after 'enclosed', insert
and including the common parts of any building in multiple occupation'.
No. 26, in clause 8, page 6, line 31, at end insert
`and any land adjoining such a place which is not securely fenced off from that place'.

Mr. Randall: The amendment is designed to ensure that we protect the public in the best possible way. Clause 1(2) provides:
No person … allow such a dog of which he is the owner in a public place without being muzzled and kept on a lead".
We support the use of muzzles and leads, but amendment No. 6 goes further than that by taking into account the place where the animal is kept. The amendment would add to clause 1(2) and forbid a person to
allow such a dog of which he is the owner to be kept in insecure conditions in and around the place where the owner is residing".
The Bill proposes the use of muzzles and leads as an attempt to ensure that the public is protected when a dog is in a public place accompanied by its owner, but what happens when that dog is allowed out of the home unintentionally and is therefore unmuzzled and not on a lead? The consequences are serious if a dog bred for fighting is wandering the streets on its own. We should ensure that the home in which the dog is kept is secure. I believe that amendment No.6 is reasonable and sensible and I hope that it has the support of the Minister and the Committee.
What happens if a dog escapes from its home? Does the Minister agree that "insecure conditions" could threaten the safety of the public?
Amendment No.9 refers to clause 3, which relates to keeping dogs under control. Clause 3(1) states:
If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place … the owner"—
or the person responsible for it—
is guilty of an offence".
Questions have already been asked on Second Reading about the definition of a public place. Amendment No.9 refers to "any other place" where the dog is a danger to any member of the public.
My constituency has many blocks of flats with security systems and a limited number of entrances. The aim of such security is to make such blocks private places so as to protect the residents. Some of the larger blocks have security guards and use special locking devices. My hon. Friends and I are concerned about the definition of "public place" in clause 3. What does the Minister mean by that?
In Hull, a person got into the ground floor of one of the blocks. Someone on one of the upper floors threatened that person by saying, "Unless you get out of here I'll set my dog on you." In those circumstances, there is a threat to a person's safety and security, yet the clause is restrictive as it uses the term "public place". Will the Minister define exactly "public place" and tell us whether the clause will apply to blocks of flats with such non-public places or whether there will be a loophole that could cause problems for those living in or visiting those areas?

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I wish briefly to refer to amendment No. 26. I tabled the amendment to probe what is meant by the term "public place". I read the notes on clauses after I had tabled the amendment, and my understanding is that "public place" is defined in law rather wider than it would appear to be in common-sense English.
I am sure that the Minister is aware that I am a keen walker and that I often speak on behalf of ramblers. I do not do so on this occasion, but I am conscious that many people enjoy walking. In recent years, some of them have experienced considerable problems on public footpaths. Such problems do not generally occur when people walk past traditional farms, because although farm dogs make a great deal of noise, if they are difficult they are usually chained. If they are running free, they usually behave themselves.
On the urban fringes, people are increasingly buying properties in the countryside. Footpaths run past those dwellings, and their owners often keep quite substantial dogs that, on many occasions, are not chained. I want to know whether "public place" will cover a right of way, and if so, how much of it will be covered. Will it be just the 2 ft or 3 ft of the path, or will it be any area close to the right of way that may have a dog on it, which would discourage people from using the footpath? I hope that the Minister can clarify that point.
What will be the responsibilities of people who take dogs with them when they walk on a public right of way? As I understand the existing legislation, if someone is on a public footpath he has a responsibility to have the dog under close control. That is difficult to define. My experience is that a large number of people who use

footpaths take dogs with them, but in no way could they be said to be under close control. The dogs are often allowed to bound ahead.
Twice recently, while walking on a footpath, I have been confronted by substantial dogs. They have run up to me and jumped up. In fact, once they had jumped up they turned out to be very friendly dogs. I do not like having a dog jump up at me, whether or not it is friendly. It was a great relief to discover that they were friendly. I do not think that my walk should be spoilt by someone's dog jumping up at me, whether or not it is friendly. The owners are often a long way behind, and in no position to stop their dogs behaving in that way.
I hope that the Minister will confirm that if someone is on a public footpath he has a duty to keep the dog at heel, and not allow it to bound ahead and upset other people who are walking on the footpath or to disturb livestock. Sheep and cattle are constantly being stopped from grazing because of the number of people on footpaths with dogs.
I do not want to stop people walking dogs on public footpaths in the countryside; I hope, however, that the Minister will make it clear that such people are responsible for keeping their dogs under close control—which means that they have control of the dogs and the dogs are close to them. Public places must include public footpaths and rights of way; people should have reasonable space, and should not be expected to walk past a large dog that may look as though it may be dangerous.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I have been trying to count the number of multi-storey dwellings that my constituency contains. Because of the lateness of the hour it has become more and more difficult, but I hope that hon. Members will take my word for it when I tell them that there are more than 28. The Red Roads flats, for instance, are 32 storeys high. Some of those buildings are very pleasant to live in; some people prefer to live in them, because of the security and the ease with which they can be heated and decorated. One block—the Carron scheme block—is in particularly high demand.
I tabled amendment No. 14 because it would worry me if some barrack-room lawyer came along and said, "I know that the pavement is a public place, but it is a different matter once I have gained access to the secured entrance"—or hallway—"of my multi-storey flat, which is a communal part of the property. I pay a rent; I am a tenant. My dog can be free to roam there, if I wish it to." That would put other tenants in danger—along with tradesmen, milkmen, postmen and, indeed, Members of Parliament, who are surely entitled to visit buildings that are, say, 22 storeys high, with four families on each landing, and to regard the common entrances, stairways and lifts as places to which access should be free.
It has been suggested that tenants of some multi-storey flats are so lazy that, when their dogs need to relieve themselves, they show the dogs to the lift and press the gound-floor button, whereupon the dogs take care of everything else. That suggests that the dogs are more intelligent than the tenants. I think that some people who own "dangerous breeds" are not quite the full shilling: they are not right in the head. After all, no intelligence test is involved in dog ownership. Yet we allow those people to own some of the most dangerous creatures known to man.
I know that the Bill cannot cover everything, but I hope that the Minister can reassure us that stupid tenants who happen to be irresponsible dog owners will not be a liability to others, or to members of the public. I include deck-access blocks here. Some people used to say—I hope that I shall not offend the women's section of the Labour party—

Mrs. Llin Golding: Never.

Mr. Martin: There is only one member of that section present anyway.
Some people say that, if only women designed buildings, we would have better designs. One of the worst-designed buildings in my constituency, the Balgrayhill deck access block, was designed by a woman architect. Needless to say, she does not live in the building. My concern is that two storeys up there is a deck access. The architect's idea was that it would serve as the pavement, where neighbours could chat to one another, in the style of the other tenement communities that existed before Glasgow's slums were pulled down. It was a great idea, but the alsatians, rottweilers and pit bull terriers are allowed to roam at their leisure. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the provision to control dogs in public places will cover stairways, lifts, and the decks of deck access buildings.
Glasgow and Edinburgh must have more tenemental property than anywhere in Britain. Some of them are modelled on the kind of tenements that are seen in Paris. They are lovely places in which to live, but if I encountered an aggressive dog, I would rather do so in the street than in the confined entrance to a multi-storey block of flats or tenement. In that situation, I could only turn my back on the dog and run—and if one is three stone overweight, one might not be able to outrun the dog.
Mention was made of guide dogs for the blind, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) was present in the Chamber with his beautiful dog only an hour or two ago. I learned of a case in which a blind tenant in one 32-storey block took his guide dog into the lift, not realising that a pit bull terrier was already in it. Most dogs are territorial, and even those that do not have aggression bred into them will, in certain circumstances, protect what they regard as their territory. In that case, the pit bull terrier had a go at the guide dog.
Imagine what a terrifying experience it would be to find oneself in a lift that broke down, if one was sharing it with a dog—even one under the control of its owner. One might be trapped in that lift, in pitch black, for two hours or more—and in those circumstances, the dog could grow frightened, and that fear might make it become aggressive. I have described the sort of situations that tenants throughout the country confront every day, so including stairways, lifts and decks in the definition of a public place would help.

Mr. Douglas French: I seek clarification as to the difference between a public place and a private place, in the context of a constituency example. I refer to a case in which access to two houses is via a private path that runs alongside another property's back garden, in which is kept a particularly ferocious alsatian. That animal puts everyone who uses that access in fear of their lives, to the extent that the postman, milkman, and others who would otherwise deliver services to the two properties in question refuse to use the path.
The owners have sought every remedy available to them, but have drawn a blank under all the legislation that they have examined. However, clause 3(4) of the Bill clarifies the meaning of section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871. I understand that that clause would have the same effect as the amendments before us in that it would provide a remedy in the case that I have cited. Clause 3(4) clarifies the scope of section 2 of the 1871 Act, and the application of that Act is not confined to a public place. I shall be grateful if the Minister can confirm that my understanding is correct.

Mrs. Rumbold: The first point raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) concerned clause I (2)(d) and the question whether a clog should be secure and what would happen if it got out and became a stray. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that, under clause 1(2)(e) a person may not
abandon such a dog of which he is the owner or, being the owner or for the time being in charge of such dog, allow it to stray".
That provision will bite, because it requires that no person shall allow his prohibited dog to stray.
Any owner who kept his dog in insecure conditions would certainly fall foul of the provision, and we believe that it would act as a powerful incentive to those who wanted to hold on to their dogs to ensure that they were, indeed, securely kept. Someone who keeps a dog designated a dangerous dog under the Bill—for example, a pit bull terrier—will already have accepted that a number of constraints will apply in respect of that dog, one of which is specified in clause 1(2)(e).
Moreover, we believe that, if a dog were kept in what appeared to be insecure conditions, clause 3(4) would bite. That provision would ensure that a neighbour or anyone else who knew that someone was the owner of a pit bull terrier which, in his view, was not securely contained, could request a court order specifying that the dog should be brought under control. It will be within the court's power to order that the dog should be kept in secure conditions. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West that the problem is already dealt with under clause 1(2)(e).
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) voiced their concern about public ways and walkways. I have sympathy with the intention behind the amendments, which I understand to be to ensure the protection of members of the public entering private property on lawful business—for example, postmen, of whom we have talked before.
The proposals are also aimed to ensure that the provisions of clause 3, dealing with dogs that are dangerously out of control, apply to walkways and other public places in blocks of flats such as those to which the hon. Member for Springburn has referred. I understand that point, because I, too, have blocks of flats in my constituency where such difficulties could arise. That is why we took the matter into account when drafting the Bill, and we believe that we have covered it fully in the provisions.
The Dogs Act 1871, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester referred, is strengthened and clarified by clause 3(4), which gives any person the right to make a complaint about any dog in any place, and for the court, on upholding the complaint, to specify measures to keep the dog under proper control, including the areas


where it is not allowed to go. In other words, the court can say, "That dog must not be allowed on that particular walkway." That gives the postmen and the worried neighbour the possibility of ensuring that a dog is no longer allowed to be in an area where it has previously caused alarm or even injury.
Our definition of a public place in clause 8(2) is broader than that in previous related legislation; it also includes areas to which the public have access. That extends the definition to many areas sometimes thought of as private property, such as shopping precincts and common areas in blocks of flats. I think that the extended pathway that the hon. Member for Springburn was talking about when he mentioned the unfortunate lady architect who designed the block in question, is covered in that clause. Therefore, it would be unnecessary to agree to his amendment, because it is already taken care of.
May I say a final word about amendment No. 9 and the extension of dangerous dog provisions to all places. I have said previously that we do not need this additional provision because of the action that members of the public will be able to take under the Dogs Act 1871. Furthermore, section 16 of the Public Order Act 1986 gives extra protection because it gives members of the public an implied right to enter private property on lawful business without let or hindrance.
2.30 am
The lawful business aspect raises the query whether, under this amendment, it would be possible for a burglar to bring an action against an owner whose dog had been dangerously out of control when the burglar broke in. I am sure that the hon. Member would agree that that would be neither sensible nor fair. However, it serves to illustrate just how difficult it is to draft reasonable provisions regarding private property. I hope that hon. Members will agree that we have given considerable thought to how best to define public places and that we have tried to come up with a working definition.
As regards the issue mentioned by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), the definition of a public place in the Bill is much wider than that contained in the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847, which is confined to streets and lands controlled by a local authority. The definition was deliberately extended to include some privately owned land and the Bill specifically states that places to which the public have access are covered by the phrase. Therefore, I think that I can assure him that public footpaths will certainly be included.
In his amendment the hon. Gentleman adds to public place land which adjoins it but is "not securely fenced off" from it. The word "securely" seems to open the definition very wide. If a dog can get into a garden or a field it could be argued that that alone would show that the fence was not secure. I do not think that that was quite what the hon. Member meant. He was perhaps talking about catching a dog which strays on to a privately owned field or open field and may cause some damage to farm animals. He may have been worried about dogs worrying sheep.
Public footpaths are public places within this Bill. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish wanted to know what would happen about close control of dogs. The

intention is that dogs should be on a lead, so I trust that in future when he walks across the country on public footpaths and he meets dogs they will be on a lead.
With those comments I hope that I have answered the questions put by Opposition Members and that they will not feel the need to press their amendments.

Mr. Randall: The Minister's comments about clause 1(2)(e) worry me a little. She said quite clearly that the courts might have to interpret the end of that clause, which talks about the owner allowing the dog to stray, because if a dog got out of the house in which it was kept against the will of the owner or the person responsible for it, one could argue that that person was not intentionally allowing the dog to stray.
The way in which clause 1(2)(e) is phrased leaves matters a little open and suggests that the person passively let the dog out to have a run on its own. That is how it could be interpreted, but perhaps the matter will be reconsidered in another place. We shall not divide the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. McAllion: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 1, line 22, at end insert—
'(f) be in charge of such a dog who is under 18 years of age.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 19, in page 1, line 23, at end insert—
'(g) be allowed to own a dog to which this section applies who has been convicted of offences involving violence or of drug-related offences.'.
No. 21, in clause 2, page 2, line 44, leave out 'and (e)' and insert `(e) and (f)'.
No. 22, in clause 2, page 2, line 44, after '(e)', insert 'and (g)'.

Mr. McAllion: These are, in effect, probing amendments that seek to establish the Government's position.
On Second Reading, a number of hon. Members referred to the problem of minors being in charge of fighting dogs or dangerous breeds of dogs. Amendment No. 18 would make it illegal for anyone under 18 to be in charge of such a dog.
We believe that there is an overwhelming case to pass an amendment that would protect minors in terms of their being allowed to be in charge of such dogs in public. The Minister will remember that when my constituent was killed, she and her friend were in charge of two rottweilers. Both were only 11 years old and simply could not cope with the violence of the attack. Yet the owner had done nothing illegal in allowing those youngsters to be in charge of the dogs in public. Sadly, if the Bill is enacted, the owner would still be doing nothing illegal in allowing two 11-year-olds to be in charge of them.
I recently received a bulletin from a group in the United States called Citizens United to Revitalise Education, which made out the case for banning pit bull terriers. It listed a series of attacks by those dogs between 1979 and 1990. It did not claim to be a comprehensive list because it contained only attacks of which the organisation was aware. The attacks resulted in 58 people being killed, 41 of whom were children or minors. Of the 45 other serious attacks, 21 were on children or minors. That shows that


children or minors are particularly vulnerable to attacks by such dogs and are far less likely to survive than an adult or someone over 18.
We believe that there is a clear responsibility on the Government to introduce measures to prevent minors from being placed in positions where they are vulnerable to such attacks.
Amendment No. 18 proposes that no one under 18 should be allowed to be in charge of such dogs. It is a probing amendment and 18 may not be the appropriate age below which to define a minor, but we say that there must be an appropriate age.
The Bill creates the offence of allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place and defines such an offence as leaving the dog in charge of a person who could not reasonably be believed to be a fit and proper person to be in charge of the dog. It is obvious that any owner who allowed a five, six or seven-year-old to be in charge of a dangerous dog in public would be guilty of such an offence, but it is not so obvious that he would be guilty of the offence if the person in charge of the dog were aged between 11 and 14. The Government must define the age at which it would be an offence for any owner to allow a minor to be in charge of powerful dogs in public. I hope that the Minister will tell us the Government's thinking on the problem.
The second amendment would make it illegal for anyone who has been convicted of violent or drug-related offences to own dogs covered by the Bill. My concern does not date only from the present. In May 1989, I asked the then Home Secretary whether he had had
discussions with chief officers of police concerning the increasing use of dogs to protect premises subject to police raids; and if he has any plans to introduce measures to assist police in overcoming this problem.
He told me that he had had no discussions with chief officers and that he had
no plans to introduce further measures to control guard dogs."—[Officiul Report, 26 May 1989; Vol. 153, c. 757–58.]
I understand that the present Home Secretary has had discussions with the Police Federation and with other representatives of police officers. However, there is no evidence in the Bill that he is doing anything to try to deal with the problem.
On Second Reading, we heard from the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), the spokesman for the Police Federation, who warned of increasing attacks on the police. He spoke of the support from the police for tougher measures against dangerous dogs. He referred to a study that had been carried out in the Metropolitan police area over six months and which had listed 237 attacks by ferocious dogs. He especially mentioned two attacks. In one, a large group of youths who had 10 pit bull terriers with them threatened the police in Kennington park. In another, there was growing evidence that drug dealers were using fighting dogs and dangerous breeds of clog as an offensive weapon to prevent police raids against their premises. He also referred to the position in America. American police are being forced to use sledgehammers to break down doors and to shoot on sight any dogs that may be behind the doors because of that problem. The bulletin to which I referred earlier lists a number of cases in which youngsters were killed by dogs that were being kept for the purpose of protecting drug dealers and which had got out of control.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) and I suggest that there are two

serious problems—the question of minors being allowed to be in charge of dangerous dogs in public and the criminal use to which such dogs are being put. Neither the Minister nor the Bill does anything about those problems. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the Government's intentions on the matter.

Mr. William McKelvey: I will speak briefly in support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) has said. The document that has been dispatched from America, to which my hon. Friend referred, makes harrowing reading. I suggest that anyone who has not read it does so to see recorded some of the incidents regarding pit bull terriers in particular. There is no doubt that pit bull terriers have been used for some time—certainly since 1987—to safeguard the activities of those involved with narcotics.
I will briefly explain to the House what happened so that it can understand, if it does not already, the savagery of those dogs and the difficulties that law enforcement officers have in America. They are the same difficulties that law enforcement officers could have here in going about their lawful duty, such as attempting to break into a house in which, it has been suggested, quantities of drugs are being used for illegal purposes.
John Ford, the mayor of Tuskegee, was jogging up a wooded hill when he was attacked in October 1988 by two pit bull terriers. He managed ultimately to climb up a tree and he tried to keep the dogs off by clubbing them with a piece of the tree. His cries for help were eventually heard by someone who shot one of the animals dead with a 357 Magnum and wounded the other, which was then finished off by Ford himself when he got down from the tree. He had to go to hospital for severe leg injuries which included 23 puncture wounds. The animals had lived in the wild for two months after escaping from a drug dealer who had used them as guard dogs. That was a growing problem in the state.
A police officer called Bert Ricassa was attacked by a pit bull terrier as he tried to arrest a narcotics suspect in 1987. He drew his service revolver and shot the animal four times at point blank range as it bit his thigh. However, another officer had to club the dying animal on the head and then had to use his night-stick to pry its jaws open. Ricassa was bitten four times and required 400 stitches. That happened in Baltimore.
I have a catalogue of more than 100 cases of attacks by pit bull terriers. When we consider that it was almost impossible to free the victims from the dogs and how on one occasion a service revolver pumped four shots into a dog at point-blank range, but the dog would not release its grip on the officer, it is clear why there had to be legislation against pit bull terriers.
2.45 am
Hon. Members are concerned that pit bull terriers will be with us for some time to come. The Bill will allow those owners who have responsibly registered their dogs and have certificates proving that their dogs have been neutered to keep their dogs. In fact, they may keep them for another 12 or 15 years.
Criminals who have been convicted of crimes of violence or drugs-related offences should not have the right to keep such dogs as guard dogs. It is not a matter of keeping irresponsible animals; it is more a matter of irresponsible owners keeping those vicious animals as


protection from police raids on their premises. We should legislate to ensure that no one can keep a dog of the kind about which we are concerned for that purpose—what I would describe as an unlawful purpose.
I hope that the Secretary of State has considered with the police authorities what kind of protection he can offer to our police officers. I do not think that they should be armed with .375 Magnums so that they can shoot their way into the homes of people they suspect of drugs-related offences. However, we cannot have a situation where, even after the police have broken down a door and gained access, they are confronted if not by several pit bull terriers, at least by dogs that have been trained specifically to attack anyone entering the premises. We must consider those issues seriously and I look forward to hearing the Minister of State's reply.
With regard to minors looking after what could be claimed to be dangerous dogs, the amendment is a probing one. A 16-year-old may be perfectly capable of looking after a dog, whether or not it is a dangerous breed. However, we must consider children who take those dogs out, particularly if those dogs are pit bull terriers.
The difficulty with the pit bull terrier is that it can and does attack without warning. There are hundreds of recorded cases of such attacks in the United States. It has been reported that the animal usually does not bark, growl, bare its teeth or make a threatening display. Its neck hairs do not stand on end as is the case with other breeds. It does not crouch for a spring. It simply runs silently at its victim. Unlike any other breed, a pit bull has been bred for that purpose. It knows submission signals that show that its opponent has had enough and it will continue the fight to the death. We cannot allow a minor to be in charge of such a dog because the consequences if it should escape may be horrendous. Before we record the kind of cases that occur in America—something that none of us would want to see here—legislation must be in force to ensure that such things do not happen.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support the amendment. My information is that, in the Greater Manchester area, some people who are involved in drugs are now keeping such dogs partly to deter police raids, partly to deter rival drug dealers and, in some cases, to keep control over people who are pushing drugs for them. That is a worrying development and it makes life much more difficult for police officers.
It is not sufficient to insist that anyone who has a conviction for violence or for drug dealing should not keep one of those dogs. I would make it a condition of the regulations that no one should keep such a dog on premises in which someone who has had a conviction is living. It would be very easy for someone to put the ownership of the dog into the name of another person on the premises and still keep the dog to make detection more difficult and to carry on the illegal activities for which the dog is kept. We should say, "We dearly want to see that breed of dogs phased out, but, in the circumstances you can keep one, but you must not keep it in premises in which someone is living who has been convicted of a crime of violence or a drug-related offence."

Mrs. Rumbold: I understand why the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) moved the amendment. He told the Committee that he has in mind the tragic incident last year in which two dogs killed the daughter of one of

his constituents and were under the control of a young woman of 11. It is just possible that his amendment is aimed at the wrong target. It would make the person in charge of the dog liable to the criminal offence, rather than the owner of the dog who had allowed the person concerned to be in charge of it. It is true that the greater culpability must be with the owner rather than with the person in charge.
The Bill recognises the responsibility of all dog owners in that respect. The criminal offence in clause 3, which applies to all dogs, makes it clear that the owner and the person in charge of the dog who is not the owner can be guilty of the offence of allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place.
Clause 3(2) creates a defence if the accused person can prove that the dog was in the charge of a person whom he reasonably believed to be a fit and proper person to be in charge of it. Clearly, it will be difficult for the owner of a prohibited or dangerous dog who was irresponsible enough to allow a young child to be in charge to convince the courts that that child was a fit and proper person. If convicted, the owner would face up to six months' imprisonment and, possibly, a stiff fine as well. If it was an aggravated offence where injury was caused, the owner would face up to two years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine.
In addition, the hon. Gentleman will find that in clause 8(3) there is some help in interpreting references to dogs kept on a lead. That clause makes it clear that references to a dog being kept on a lead are to its being securely held in that manner by the person for the time being in charge of it. Again, it would be difficult for anyone to claim, particularly an owner, that a young child—for example, a girl of 11—without the physical strength of an adult, could reasonably be expected to ensure that the types of dog covered by clauses 1 and 2 are securely held.

Mr. McAllion: It is a matter of how we interpret the words "young child". Perhaps people can accept that it relates to a child of I I or 12. Is there an age limit at which the Government would issue guidance that no one should allow a person below that age to be in charge of a dog?

Mrs. Rumbold: As the hon. Gentleman said, it is quite difficult to do that, because a 16-year-old boy who is fully grown as a young man would be competent and capable of containing a dog. There is a difficulty in trying to define the specific age of any young person, given the many differences in growth among people. The hon. Gentleman could accept that those clauses would be a powerful incentive to any dog owner to make absolutely certain that, whatever type of dog is involved—the matter has less to do with age than with physique and ability to control a dog—the person would be a fit and proper person to look after that dog.

Mr. Corbett: I go a long way with the Minister—age is not the main determinant. However, an owner could say, in his defence, "This person, aged I has regularly taken the dog out twice a week without any bother for the last two years. The attack that led to the court appearance was so unusual that I had no reason to believe that that person would be unable to exercise proper control." Will the Minister at least consider introducing a minimum age so that the risk can be reduced?

Mrs. Rumbold: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am not sure that it follows that if one identifies the minimum age one necessarily can convince the courts, due to the individual circumstances that surround each case. A child of five in charge of, say, an alsatian would clearly be unable to exercise proper control. Any court would say that that was neither safe nor sensible. If, however, a girl of I4 was in charge of such a dog, it would be for the court to reach a decision. Case law would, I believe, cover such an incident.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun also referred to criminals owning pit bull terriers. It is certainly true that criminals own large dogs. It is also true that people with no criminal convictions own them. Most men like to have large and aggressive dogs as a macho, fashion accessory. Some of them are pit bull terriers. We want to ensure that those dogs are not used by criminals to intimidate, attack or help them in their criminal activities. The Bill achieves that purpose without the hon. Gentleman's amendment. It would be highly unusual to single out, as an additional punishment for people convicted of violent and drug-related offences, the loss of the right to own a dog.
No one would argue that people convicted of those offences should not forfeit other rights, such as the right to own a car. It is more likely that criminals would use a car in connection with their activities rather than a dog. A convincing case can be made for that, notwithstanding the American experience of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun.

Mr. McKelvey: If a common poacher were caught poaching, the courts would take off him the means by which he poached. That sometimes includes the car in which the poacher carries off his loot. If we cannot legislate to stop felons using dogs for that purpose, but if they are convicted for using dogs for that purpose, presumably the dogs can be taken away from them. That would prevent them from using dogs for that purpose in the future. If a person can be prevented from keeping a dog because he or she ill-treats it, I do not understand why we cannot legislate to prevent people from keeping dogs and using them for that illicit purpose.

Mrs. Rumbold: If a person were caught using a dog for the criminal purposes of bringing in drugs or using drugs, that person would be imprisoned. The dog would not then have an owner and would have to be put down. The hon. Gentleman has this very unpleasant picture of criminals and others going around with their pit bull terriers by their side. Let us consider, however, what will happen after the Bill becomes law. Those people will be required to have their dogs on leads and muzzled. That will reduce their capacity to intimidate the public and will provide the general public with protection against injury.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Police officers often have to go into a house where there is one of these dogs. These circumstances will be particularly worrying for a police officer who knows that he is involved in a drugs raid and that such a dog is inside the house.

Mrs. Rumbold: There is nothing to prevent a police officer, if he wishes, from taking with him experienced people such as veterinary surgeons who would be happy to assist. I do not believe that that will present a great difficulty. Those who did not muzzle and keep their dogs on a lead in public, whether they were criminals or not. would be criminals afterwards, and face the possibility of a gaol sentence and a heavy fine. The dogs would be neutered. I am not sure that many of the people whom the hon. Gentleman has in mind would regard having a castrated dog on a lead and a muzzle as good for their image—

It being Three o'clock, THE SECOND DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order this day, put the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

The SECOND DEPUTY CHAIRMAN then put forthwith the remaining Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put .forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (Standing Committees on European Community documents).

IMPORT OF ANIMALS

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5518/91 relating to veterinary checks on live animals entering the Community from third countries; and supports the Government's objective of ensuring that the eventual rules contain the necessary safeguards against the introduction and spread of serious diseases.—[Mr. Wood.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (Standing Committees on European Community documents).

FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

That this House remains opposed to but takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10749/90 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 14th May 1991 relating to certificates of specific character for foodstuffs and 10837/90 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 3rd May 1991 relating to the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs; and supports the Government's intention to seek amendments which will encourage producer innovation without undermining the Single Market principles of free and fair trading, benefit consumers, the food industry and primary agricultural producers and facilitate international trade.—[Mr. Wood.]

Question agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Three o'clock.